Aircraft lands in Cheltenham garden
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the idea is very good in Certain circumstances !!!
BUT you are missing the fundamental points. Pilots are flying beyond their experience, They are running out of fuel,They are flying in icing conditions, they are flying over inhospitable terrain, flying in IMC. Their mindset is wrong !!!!!
One slide says there was a 700 cloud base !! Single engine ?????? Not very wise in my book.
But hey, Carry on if you have a parachute to save you.
BUT you are missing the fundamental points. Pilots are flying beyond their experience, They are running out of fuel,They are flying in icing conditions, they are flying over inhospitable terrain, flying in IMC. Their mindset is wrong !!!!!
One slide says there was a 700 cloud base !! Single engine ?????? Not very wise in my book.
But hey, Carry on if you have a parachute to save you.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FleetFlyer
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.
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. ... 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.
That is not good.
Consequently, COPA, the Cirrus owners and pilots association, collaborated with Cirrus Aircraft to undertake a major expansion of the training resources for utilisation of the CAPS parachute system. See www.cirrusaircraft.com/caps
All in the context of a significant effort to expand the Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program (CPPP) world-wide and the Cirrus Standardized Instructor Pilot program respectively. More training resources conducted by more Cirrus-knowledgeable instructors.*
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.
Please note the difference.
Cheers
Rick
* In the fatal accident history of Cirrus aircraft, there have been 8 fatals with instructors in the right seat. Three of those instructors had less than 30 hours of time-in-type and appear to have contributed to putting the aircraft and pilot-under-training in risky situations, such as performing a return to airport maneuver at pattern altitude, or overcontrolling the bank angle after flying through the final approach course. Choose your Cirrus instructors wisely.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P1Driver has it right
Any pilot who above a city and looses the engine while being capable of gliding clear is a selfish Basta+d Yellow bellied and incompetent if he pulls the chute with total disregard for where he comes down.
One day it will be into a childrens play ground.
There was a much publicized accident where a pilot flying his Girlfriend IMC thought his destination was going to be 2000 foot cloudbase.
getting there the cloudbase was low and the incompetent pilot elected to try and fly an ILS. Making a bad job of it he was told to go around and fly the missed approach.
The incompetent pilot could not even fly a missed approach and lost control in a turn.
He pulled the chute which saved him and his girlfriend but she refused to fly with him again.
I love the Cirrus and the chute but it cannot be a replacement for solid flying skills and that is my concern.
Too many accidents are pilots being where they are incapable of being and relying on the chute as a get me out of jail for free card
Pace
Any pilot who above a city and looses the engine while being capable of gliding clear is a selfish Basta+d Yellow bellied and incompetent if he pulls the chute with total disregard for where he comes down.
One day it will be into a childrens play ground.
There was a much publicized accident where a pilot flying his Girlfriend IMC thought his destination was going to be 2000 foot cloudbase.
getting there the cloudbase was low and the incompetent pilot elected to try and fly an ILS. Making a bad job of it he was told to go around and fly the missed approach.
The incompetent pilot could not even fly a missed approach and lost control in a turn.
He pulled the chute which saved him and his girlfriend but she refused to fly with him again.
I love the Cirrus and the chute but it cannot be a replacement for solid flying skills and that is my concern.
Too many accidents are pilots being where they are incapable of being and relying on the chute as a get me out of jail for free card
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 6th Jun 2013 at 21:03.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RC and the Cirrus accident rate
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by P1DRIVER
BUT you are missing the fundamental points. Pilots are flying beyond their experience, They are running out of fuel,They are flying in icing conditions, they are flying over inhospitable terrain, flying in IMC. Their mindset is wrong !!!!!
Let's see, Cirrus has 5400 aircraft in a US fleet size of about 200,000 aircraft, so 1/30. But only 2 of 141 fatal accidents are Cirrus or 1/70. (And yet, here we are debating the merits of a safety feature. Pretty absurd, eh?)
Those 5 parachute events: loss of oil pressure (maintenance failure), loss of oil quantity (TBD), fuel exhaustion (short interval from warning to stoppage), flap mechanism failure (TBD), and today's incident (TBD).
Cheers
Rick
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at the fact that this aircraft was in the vicinity of an airport
Lets just remind some UK pilots of the following
(3) Exemptions from the low flying prohibitions
(a) Landing and taking off
(i) Any aircraft shall be exempt from any low flying prohibition in so far as it is flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at or checking navigational aids or procedures at a Government or licensed aerodrome.
(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice.
Lets get the rules straight if we are going to quote them
And yes pilots should not take on extra risk just because of the chute but I train lots of UK Cirrus pilots and from my experience the vast majority are sensible conscientious and safety minded. They are all aware of what could happen and spend considerable amounts of time and money training to ensure that they are sharp with IFR flying skills and practice PFL and CAPS deployments.
Lets just remind some UK pilots of the following
(3) Exemptions from the low flying prohibitions
(a) Landing and taking off
(i) Any aircraft shall be exempt from any low flying prohibition in so far as it is flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at or checking navigational aids or procedures at a Government or licensed aerodrome.
(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice.
Lets get the rules straight if we are going to quote them
And yes pilots should not take on extra risk just because of the chute but I train lots of UK Cirrus pilots and from my experience the vast majority are sensible conscientious and safety minded. They are all aware of what could happen and spend considerable amounts of time and money training to ensure that they are sharp with IFR flying skills and practice PFL and CAPS deployments.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whether the Staverton accident was handled correctly ("the engine was clearly running so he shouldn't have pulled the chute")
Why, in such a complex aircraft, isn't there at least an auto engine shutdown function when the chute deploys? Does it squawk emergency or deploy a locator beacon automatically?
belowradar, post no 7 says it was reported 2.5 miles from Staverton so UK pilots don't need reminding that's even outside the ATZ so hardly "in the vicinity of the airfield". An exception to that might be if on an instrument approach - but was this incident on the extended centreline? I don't think we know that yet.
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 6th Jun 2013 at 21:15.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's see, Cirrus has 5400 aircraft in a US fleet size of about 200,000 aircraft
Also flying the same type of flight profile.
So if you could get rid of all the aero crashes.
Get rid of all the experimental crashes etc
And just have the sub 10 year old airframe touring crashes we might have something useful to look at.
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
EDMJ,
I quoted the rules for flight over congested areas in UK. I'm not arguing about any pilot's decision to deploy a BRS 'chute (and not this pilot's decision), only the legal considerations to be made when flying over a congested area - or when not to do so, for engine failure considerations.
I used to fly single engined military jets, ejection seat equipped, and later instructed on SEP, wearing a parachute, so I do have some relevant experience.
Irrespective of the safety of occupants of the aircraft (they take the risk knowingly, in the eyes of the law), the rules also take into consideration the requirement to protect the safety of people and property on the ground below.
These days I am often required to operate at relatively low altitudes over congested areas, probably far more than most pilots here. I am legally allowed to do so because I fly a twin engined helicopter and operate on ATC mandated routes under SVFR. Sometimes these routings involve a waiver of the 1,000 foot rule. However, I would not be allowed to do the same if I flew a single engined aircraft of any type, either fixed or rotary wing. They are the aviation rules of the land, not my personal interpretation. If I flew a single, I would have to fly round the congested area on a very different route.
I quoted the rules for flight over congested areas in UK. I'm not arguing about any pilot's decision to deploy a BRS 'chute (and not this pilot's decision), only the legal considerations to be made when flying over a congested area - or when not to do so, for engine failure considerations.
I used to fly single engined military jets, ejection seat equipped, and later instructed on SEP, wearing a parachute, so I do have some relevant experience.
Irrespective of the safety of occupants of the aircraft (they take the risk knowingly, in the eyes of the law), the rules also take into consideration the requirement to protect the safety of people and property on the ground below.
These days I am often required to operate at relatively low altitudes over congested areas, probably far more than most pilots here. I am legally allowed to do so because I fly a twin engined helicopter and operate on ATC mandated routes under SVFR. Sometimes these routings involve a waiver of the 1,000 foot rule. However, I would not be allowed to do the same if I flew a single engined aircraft of any type, either fixed or rotary wing. They are the aviation rules of the land, not my personal interpretation. If I flew a single, I would have to fly round the congested area on a very different route.
Ah, the joys of ad hominen attacks. So much easier when you don't have a clue about what has really happened with Cirrus accident history.
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
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
"The engineering investigation identified no abnormalities in the aircraft or its systems. An intermittent or occasional malfunction of the autopilot could not be ruled out, although all tests indicated that the autopilot and associated systems functioned normally."
Ironically not that far away from this accident, regardless it does seem that the ability to simply pull a parachute perhaps shows a general lack of mental capacity which won't serve pilots of this type very well long term.
At some point that parachute won't deploy - or at least not correctly - then what do you do?? I suspect the answer is the family sue Cirrus.....
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Swindon, Wiltshire
Age: 49
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to posts on Flyer, chap had an FAA IR and was cleared for an RNAV approach to 27. No mechanical failure reported.
I guess we really will have to wait for the AAIB report on this one!
I guess we really will have to wait for the AAIB report on this one!
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
From the BBC report, the emergency services were called at 1045 BST.
METARS:
Also, the aircraft came down approx. 2.2 nm from the threshold of runway 27 and just downwind of the centreline. If properly established on the GNSS instrument approach for R27, it should have been at just under 900 feet QNH (approx 800 feet aal) at that point.
METARS:
METAR EGBJ 061020Z 04008KT 360V060 8000 FEW009 SCT008 BKN015
11/08 Q1023=
METAR EGBJ 060950Z 04008KT 8000 SCT005 BKN008 11/08 Q1023=
METAR EGBJ 060920Z 03007KT 8000 SCT005 BKN008 11/08 Q1023=
11/08 Q1023=
METAR EGBJ 060950Z 04008KT 8000 SCT005 BKN008 11/08 Q1023=
METAR EGBJ 060920Z 03007KT 8000 SCT005 BKN008 11/08 Q1023=
Last edited by ShyTorque; 6th Jun 2013 at 22:23.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Langdale Rd, Cheltenham. Take a look on Google Earth.
It is damn near a mile south of the centreline of 27 and 2.5 miles out which is a strange place for an aircraft on an RNAV approach to be. With weather as above it looks very much like partial IMC at 1000ft too which makes that position seem even stranger to me. Stranger yet, why an approach to 27 with a NW wind of 7-8Kts? Lots of oddities here!
In response to ST's response below it couldn't drift anywhere like that distance from c/l at 1000ft. Maybe 150yds south by my rough calculations.
It also appears to be within a few tens of yards of huge school playing fields which would be unlikely to be in use at 1045 and not much more than half a mile from extensive agricultural land, much of which appears to be pasture.
It is damn near a mile south of the centreline of 27 and 2.5 miles out which is a strange place for an aircraft on an RNAV approach to be. With weather as above it looks very much like partial IMC at 1000ft too which makes that position seem even stranger to me. Stranger yet, why an approach to 27 with a NW wind of 7-8Kts? Lots of oddities here!
In response to ST's response below it couldn't drift anywhere like that distance from c/l at 1000ft. Maybe 150yds south by my rough calculations.
It also appears to be within a few tens of yards of huge school playing fields which would be unlikely to be in use at 1045 and not much more than half a mile from extensive agricultural land, much of which appears to be pasture.
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 6th Jun 2013 at 22:48.
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
Having said that, the aircraft on its 'chute would have drifted downwind from the point of initial deployment. If it was established on the centreline as expected, at the correct altitude, it seems that the aircraft may have been breaking cloud when something drastic occurred.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Such fun these threads which normally run to form, pilot doesnt know what he is doing, shouldnt be flying a cirrus, far to complex, obviously caught out by the weather, shouldnt have been that low, yet another excuse to pull .. .. ..
Then someone mentions the pilot may have been flying an instrument approach and has an ir .. .. ..
Who knows there are good pilots with and without ir's and there are good pilots who make mistakes, speculation and debate is valuable, but it does occur to me that these threads attract an alarming amount of biggoted opinion from pilots who should know better.
With apologies but that is how i feel.
Then someone mentions the pilot may have been flying an instrument approach and has an ir .. .. ..
Who knows there are good pilots with and without ir's and there are good pilots who make mistakes, speculation and debate is valuable, but it does occur to me that these threads attract an alarming amount of biggoted opinion from pilots who should know better.
With apologies but that is how i feel.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before Peter asks
I don't think this one will be glued back together, a bit of a pity another few feet away from that fence and tree and the story could have been so different !
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: staffs
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cirrus chute crash
I read all the chit chat with maybe different thoughts as owning and flying a cirrus for 10yrs now.
Number 1 yes the guy did the right thing by pulling the chute, thats what is there for, it saved his life and may be others on the ground.. you can all debate what he should and should not have done over a built up area, but bottom line today thats what he decided to do, we can all be arm chair pilots but unless any of us where in the place at the time we would all use something if it is there to save our skins.
My reason for buying a cirrus was for a chute it could one day save lives.
The comment that cirrus pilots are less safe becasue they have a chute what stuppid comment that was..
There seems to be more AAIB investegators on here than anything.. to much speculation to what might have been if he had done this, if he was not so old etc etc,,
Give the guy a break he is a pilot like some of us and faced with what ever happened to him today he got it so right..
A plane falls out of sky at 1000ft plus and the pilot walks away, well who would have thought that some years back..
Disconect all them airbags in your cars and run for the hills, do they make you a less of a driver because you know you will be alright if you have a crash..
Number 1 yes the guy did the right thing by pulling the chute, thats what is there for, it saved his life and may be others on the ground.. you can all debate what he should and should not have done over a built up area, but bottom line today thats what he decided to do, we can all be arm chair pilots but unless any of us where in the place at the time we would all use something if it is there to save our skins.
My reason for buying a cirrus was for a chute it could one day save lives.
The comment that cirrus pilots are less safe becasue they have a chute what stuppid comment that was..
There seems to be more AAIB investegators on here than anything.. to much speculation to what might have been if he had done this, if he was not so old etc etc,,
Give the guy a break he is a pilot like some of us and faced with what ever happened to him today he got it so right..
A plane falls out of sky at 1000ft plus and the pilot walks away, well who would have thought that some years back..
Disconect all them airbags in your cars and run for the hills, do they make you a less of a driver because you know you will be alright if you have a crash..
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pittsextra
Will be interesting to see what the reason is for this but the last time a report on a Cirrus that came down under its parachute this was reported:-
"The engineering investigation identified no abnormalities in the aircraft or its systems. An intermittent or occasional malfunction of the autopilot could not be ruled out, although all tests indicated that the autopilot and associated systems functioned normally."
"The engineering investigation identified no abnormalities in the aircraft or its systems. An intermittent or occasional malfunction of the autopilot could not be ruled out, although all tests indicated that the autopilot and associated systems functioned normally."
The CAPS pull at Horton, Gloucestershire, UK was in an SRV model. That means it is not capable nor authorized for IFR flight in IMC. Yet, the pilot was flying at or just below the cloud bases when he admitted disorientation and/or vertigo.
For Cirrus pilots, a mistake or lack of skill or experience or planning does not need to mean a death sentence. It should and does mean that most Cirrus pilots seek greater skill and experience and planning to avoid getting into those situations. Attendance at the COPA Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program (CPPP) has increased this year by about 15-20 percent. And we just held our inaugural CPPP in Brazil, along with the ones in US, Europe and Australia.
Ironically not that far away from this accident, regardless it does seem that the ability to simply pull a parachute perhaps shows a general lack of mental capacity which won't serve pilots of this type very well long term.
At some point that parachute won't deploy - or at least not correctly - then what do you do?? I suspect the answer is the family sue Cirrus.....
Originally Posted by A and C
Before Peter asks
I don't think this one will be glued back together, a bit of a pity another few feet away from that fence and tree and the story could have been so different
I don't think this one will be glued back together, a bit of a pity another few feet away from that fence and tree and the story could have been so different
At least 8 Cirrus airplanes have been repaired and flown again after a parachute pull. One of those was N470RD mentioned earlier in the chute pull at Horton, Gloucestershire.
Anyone have better photographs of the damage? See any other areas of broken parts?
Cheers
Rick
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rick,
Your telling us that someone pulled the handle for "flap mechanism failure"
Unbelievable .????? You don,t need flaps to land surely ?
(Unless only one flap came down,Then he / she should have put it back up!, and the a/c entered a spin?? )
Once again " fuel exhaustion". No excuses. Flying until the fuel gets that low is very, very bad airmanship.
And yes I agree it is also happening with other a/c types.
I don,t really care about all the figures your firing at us to make this safety device look good!! These accidents are making your pilots look bad. (In my eyes)
Your telling us that someone pulled the handle for "flap mechanism failure"
Unbelievable .????? You don,t need flaps to land surely ?
(Unless only one flap came down,Then he / she should have put it back up!, and the a/c entered a spin?? )
Once again " fuel exhaustion". No excuses. Flying until the fuel gets that low is very, very bad airmanship.
And yes I agree it is also happening with other a/c types.
I don,t really care about all the figures your firing at us to make this safety device look good!! These accidents are making your pilots look bad. (In my eyes)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who knows there are good pilots with and without ir's and there are good pilots who make mistakes, speculation and debate is valuable, but it does occur to me that these threads attract an alarming amount of biggoted opinion from pilots who should know better.
We have had these discussions before but here goes !!!
the Cirrus is unique in being an aircraft which flies against convention in offering a manufacturer standard fit BRS!
Accidents where the chute is used will attract discussion by pilots.
The use of the chute will often run against conventional training to recover from situations which are not open to aircraft not fitted with a BRS.
I wish other manufacturers would follow suit as such a recovery option does save lives.
When and how it is used will naturally generate discussion!
in this situation the Pilot did the right thing as he and others on the ground got away with it!
had there been a baby or child in the garden then the headlines would be very different.
There is another thread running on crosswind landings" Time and time again pilots refer to flying to the manufacturers POH.
cirrus do not recommend the use of the Chute in the event of a power loss!
They recommend conventional gliding to a clear area and forcelanding.
Only if such an area does not exist do they recommend CONSIDERING the use of the BRS.
It is other NON Cirrus organisations who promote the idea of pulling the chute for literally any event and I totslly disagree with that stance.
Once that chute is pulled the occupants become passengers to a crash and people on the ground are put at risk.
I have often flown aircraft when the winds near the surface have been 30 mph and have flown singles where the winds have been 60 mph.
Would I be best forcelanding with very slow groundspeed into 30 or 60 mph winds or slamming into a brick wall at 30mph or 60 mph under a Cirrus chute?
We all know the results to a car hitting a brick wall at 30 or 60 mph!
While an aircraft is flying or gliding you have directional control.
Under the chute you have no directional control,
Too many Cirrus accidents are happening to pilots who are flying out of their ability range and in conditions that they are not up to!
I am not comfortable flying a conventional single at night! i would be far more comfortable flying a Cirrus at night! That follows that I would fly more at night and hence expose myself more to the chance of having to use the chute at night.
The same appears to be the case with pilots pushing on into conditions they are not up to flying because in the back of their minds they have a get out of jail for free card in the form of the BRS.
Yes more and more of the chute pulls appear to be pilots getting into a mess out of their skill abiliities because the BRS gives them a false comfort zone.
We have a responsibility not just to saving our own bacon but to those on the ground and when or when not to pull the chute needs far more discussion. If you have an engine failure over a built up area and have the altitude to glide clear it is totally irresponsible and cowardly to risk people on the ground by pulling the chute.
If you are too low or some other problem occurs then you have no choice but to pull and as in this case hope all turns out fine for you and others below.
The Cirrus is a wonderful aircraft with a lot of new safety options what is in discussion is when and when not to use it and whether it is luring pilots into flying in conditions where they or the aircraft are not capable of dealing with.
If that is biggoted by pilots who should know better ???
Maybe it is concerns being raised by pilots who probably do know betterPace
Last edited by Pace; 7th Jun 2013 at 05:06.