Aircraft lands in Cheltenham garden

[A and C]

Sdbeach

In my view the damage to this aircraft is such that it is unlikely to be economically recoverable. N470RD landed in a field and did not hit anything on the way down, there was a little wing tip damage but apart from that the wing was undamaged, the major work involved damage to the fuselage in the area of the rear spar mounting.

From what I have seen in the photo of this aircraft the wing is a write off and shock of this wing detachment it likely to have so damaged the fuselage centre section that it is not economic to repair, add to that an engine shock load check and a new prop ( undamaged on N470RD) and I doubt if the numbers stack up in faviour of a repair.

[thborchert]

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.

You are absolutely right! So once we agree that pilots regularly commit all kinds of very, very bad airmanship and that this is THE overwhelming cause of accidents in general aviation (just look at the reports), please now make the next step in your thinking: Do pilots deserve to die for commiting bad airmanship? Or is it a good idea to offer them an out? A way to make one last, but really good decision: to pull?

These accidents are making your pilots look bad. (In my eyes)

These accidents are making them look alive. Would you really prefer to discuss another "tragic" accident where the pilot did the exact same thing, as regularly happens in other aircraft types AND in the Cirrus?

Sorry, but I don't get it.

And to those in this thread who say "well, he should have just flown better" or something to that effect: Have a look at the statistics. The vast majority of accidents is caused by pilots doing stupid things. The thinking of "well, I'd never be that stupid because I am a really good pilot" has been clearly identified by accident investigators as a dangerous attitude. Pride cometh before the fall and all that.

Once that chute is pulled the occupants become passengers to a crash and people on the ground are put at risk.

You mean, unlike the case of the Lancair and the jogger on the beach, where the pilot had so much control? There's a ton of cases like that. I know of NO case where an aircraft coming down under a chute has caused injury to people on the ground. I know of several cases where people have been injured by aircraft landing "conventionally". Your point is a nice theory. It doesn't hold water. Conventional emergency landings are more dangerous to the people inside the aircraft AND on the ground. By a huge margin.

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!
...
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.

Care to substantiate those statements with actual numbers and facts? The cases are out there. Tell us how you arrive at "too many" and "more and more".

[Hendy]

huge school playing fields which would be unlikely to be in use at 1045

There are 4 schools on that site. The playing fields are in continuous use. My own son attends one of those schools and early morning rugby has featured in his timetable - although I think it's athletics at the moment.

I'm surprised more has not been made in the press of the low pass near the schools while not in control of the aircraft. The school's mobile phone policy is obviously effective otherwise there could have been a lot more footage. A lot of them saw the parachute and they all heard the bang.

[stickandrudderman]

A good pilot is one who is relaxed in his aircraft, even when the workload gets high.
It could be argued that a pilot who pulls the chute is most definitely not relaxed and that the situation that is causing his discomfort is one that he might easily have found himself in if flying an aircraft that wasn't equipped with BRS.
The two scenarios offer very different outcomes and I know which one I prefer.
Any pilot who says that he has never and will never find himself in an airborne situation where his comfort levels are exceeded has probably driven every model of F1 car ever made, flown every aircraft type ever made, sailed every boat ever made and fathered children by both Natalie Imbruglia and Angelina Jolie after having quaffed seven bottles of 57 Dom Perignon in one dinner at Buckingham Palace.
(A fantasist).

[EDMJ]

... the low pass near the schools while not in control of the aircraft...

Care to elaborate on that? All previous reports merely seem to state the aircraft was on approach to Staverton, something happened and the chute was pulled.

[Pace]

ThBouchert

I have read a number of the accident reports over time and an awful lot are pilots flying in conditions they are not capable of handlling !
No body wants anyone to die and the BRS is a major advance in offering a way out!
Your argument that no one has been killed on the ground to date by a descending aircraft under a chute is pathetic!
In this very crash bad that house had young children playing in the garden we would have never hear the end of it! It will
Happen!
I do not see any who are against the use of the chute the argument is more about when and where to use it and when not
Also I strongly believe that having the chute is encouraging some pilots into situations where they need to use it as stated I would not fly a single at night any distance but I would in a Cirrus

Pace

[belowradar]

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

Very MACHO and emotive opinion

And for the guy who thinks 2.5 miles is not in the vicinity we now hear that IR rated and flying RNAV approach to airport

Get rid of the nonsense opinion and start looking at the facts

[Pace]

EDMJ

In a zero wind day the aircraft under a chute will descend vertically!
On windy days it will descend vertically and travel horizontally enroute to its uncontrolled touchdown point as would a descending balloon!
So it would travel over the tops of various ground features before the eventual crash

Pace

[thborchert]

In this very crash bad that house had young children playing in the garden we would have never hear the end of it!

But they didn't. Noone was hurt. You can make up disaster scenarios all you want. To what end? Recreational flying is "unnecessary" and always has a risk attached. So are you suggesting to prohibit it? Because that's the only consequence that really makes sense to your line of argument. Are you suggesting that YOU decide what an acceptable risk is (your kind of flying, but not that of others)? Life is not free of risk. And you are moving down a very slippery slope.

Also I strongly believe that having the chute is encouraging some pilots into situations where they need to use it

"Some" is quite different from "too many" and "more and more", wouldn't you say?

Two observation:

-Yes, some people will do stupid things. No amount of parachutes will change that.
- Yes, of course the chute changes the risk evaluation of flying. Like having two engines. Better power. Shorter take-off and landing distances. And all those other properties of the aircraft you fly. The question is: Does the chute prompt more people to exceed their comfort zone in ways they wouldn't if the didn't have it? The record so far does not at all support that assumption.

[Pace]

Thbourchert

Now listen carefully I will not say it again ; ) The Cirrus is a wonderful aircraft ( wish I had one ) the BRS is a major advancement in safety which has saved many lives ! With all things come positives and negatives as is the case with flying twins! Twins can add safety especially with enroute problems but have their negatives too!
There are some who peddle the idea of pulling the shoot for literally any threatening situation and there are those of us who can see problems in doing so in some situations!
Regarding false security read up the accident reports and some make you feel ashamed that some of these aircraft drivers call themselves pilots

Pace

[Pittsextra]

Pace that sums it up well.

The parachute isn't new! Plenty of people are flying Extra's (for example) with a personal parachute but it doesn't necessarily mean you have a number of pilots bailing out.

[Hendy]

Care to elaborate on that? All previous reports merely seem to state the aircraft was on approach to Staverton, something happened and the chute was pulled.

I understand from reading this thread that once the chute is deployed the pilot is no longer in control. Perhaps I should have used an alternative word to 'pass' - 'drift' maybe.

[thborchert]

And now you listen carefully ;-)

There are some who peddle the idea of pulling the shoot for literally any threatening situation and there are those of us who can see problems in doing so in some situations!

Nobody has painted a picture as black and white as you make it. Here are the facts: Nobody (in the aircraft nor on the ground) has ever died when the chute was pulled within parameters. Those "negatives" that come with a chute simply have not happened. In all probability, a "yet" must be added to that sentence. But so far - nothing. OTOH, when you look at fatal Cirrus accidents, about half of them seem to have had a good chance to end without fatalities had the chute been pulled.

What's the conclusion to draw from that? What advice do you give people? Do you save lives by urging people to pull more often? Or do you make up fantasy scenarios of what could happen if something might happen and frighten people into not pulling? Quite a responsibility you assume when talking about pulling or not...

Regarding false security read up the accident reports and some make you feel ashamed that some of these aircraft drivers call themselves pilots

I have read every one of those reports. And many more. Fact is, pilots don't do more or differently stupid things in a Cirrus than in other aircraft.

Also, what makes you feel ashamed makes me humble. I don't consider myself to be a superior or in any way special pilot. If it can happen to them, it might just happen to me. In fact, the question of "how could someone arrive at doing something that seems so obviously stupid in hindsight?" is the one question that bothers me the most with regard to my personal safety when flying. I suggest that's a more useful approach than "feeling ashamed that some of these aircraft drivers call themselves pilots" if you intend to increase your own safety in flying.

[Pace]

ThBourchert

Ashamed was strong so apologize for that! There was a recent report which made me think what a total idiot!
A guy elected to fly his girlfriend and was flying on top expecting the cloudbase at his destination to be at 2000 feet.
This pilot was supposed to be instrument rated.
On his arrival the cloudbase was far from being 2000 feet and he was offered the ILS which he hesitantly elected to take.
he was out of limits on the ILS and was told to go around and fly the missed approach procedure.
His missed approach was awful and he was given a heading to fly back to the beacon.
In the turn back he lost control and thankfully instantly pulled the chute.
What the heck was he doing there in the first place?
Yes we all make mistakes and yes we can all get into tricky situations but this was an accident waiting to happen.
How much did the BRS comfort zone contribute to him undertaking a trip in conditions he was not capable of flying?

I am sure someone will post a link to the actual report

Pace

[thborchert]

There was a recent report which made me think what a total idiot!
A guy elected to fly his girlfriend and was flying on top expecting the cloudbase at his destination to be at 2000 feet

....

I am sure someone will post a link to the actual report

Actually, the report isn't out yet AFAIK, so much of what you describe is, no offense, conjecture. But still, GREAT example! I could not disagree more with your conclusions.

The fact is: recreational pilots are almost always "out of practice". It goes with the territory. This case is an absolutely classic scenario. The man messed up the approach. If you want to ban people who do that from flying, there'd be no pilots. Not a one. To pretend that the way to reduce GA accident rates is to only allow perfect or "real" pilots to fly is beyond ridiculous. People make mistakes. From lowly GA flying to Airbii (and I already hear you say: only the French...) and the military. The way to deal with it is NOT to ask for zero mistakes, because it won't happen.

In any aircraft but the Cirrus, the penalty for messing up the approach would have been death. Not only of the pilot, but also of the passenger. I fail to see again and again how there's any problem with these two people still being among us.

[Pace]

TH

There is no room for anyone who is not up to scratch or on top of the game in the IFR and IMC world.
This does not stop them flying VFR/VMC but IFR serious IMC is not a playground.
If it is then they become a danger to themselves a danger to their PAX and a danger to other aircraft in that airspace.

Yes we all make mistakes but the sign of a good pilot is one who identifies that mistake a promptly and correctly rectifies it not one who makes one mistake which leads to another then another then a crash.

Pace

[Agaricus bisporus]

Does the chute prompt more people to exceed their comfort zone in ways they wouldn't if the didn't have it?

It would be interesting to get a psychologist's opinion on that.

I don't think there would be any doubt about the answer. It's just human nature.

[thborchert]

Somehow I don't seem to get through. A last try, since we're repeating ourselves:

Yes we all make mistakes but the sign of a good pilot is one who identifies that mistake a promptly and correctly rectifies it not one who makes one mistake which leads to another then another then a crash.

Sounds great. Would make a nice poster. But it's just not anywhere near reality. In real life (tm), something like well over 80 percent of aircraft accidents are caused by pilots doing "blatantly dumb stuff". That goes for highly trained airline pilots, that goes for military "jocks", that goes for lowly GA pilots (the rates might differ somewhat). Insisting that everybody who crashes is an idiot and everybody who doesn't (hasn't yet, rather) is a "good pilot" doesn't help. Everybody is a "good pilot" per your definition - until they aren't.

The solution you seem to hint at is making access to flying harder (than it is already). Sort private pilots out, as with the airlines and the military. Maybe by a committee led by, hmm, Pace and mad_jock. Then, only the "good" pilots would be left to fly. Sounds like just what our society and our avocation need, right?

[Jonzarno]

Thomas: Good analysis.

In particular, making mistakes is very common and is spread right across the spectrum of GA pilots and aircraft.

Here is a link to a thread on Flyer:

FLYER Forums ? View topic - Light Aircraft Missing in Scotland

Here is a quote from it:

"The conditions, with a lot of snow, and visibility were very bad.

He said the pilot, whose identity has not been released, would have faced "tricky" decisions about whether to fly above or below the snowstorm over the mountainous terrain.

"In those conditions, he must have had to take a decision whether to go above or below it. It's not easy in a light aircraft, given the terrain below.

"He is being treated as missing, but as time goes by we begin to fear the worst."

Yes the pilot made mistakes. No he probably shouldn't have been there. Some of those posting here might well describe him in colourful language.

And, by the way, he wasn't flying a Cirrus, so he can't be accused of using a chute as an excuse to stretch his mission profile. He just got it wrong.

But should the penalty for making those mistakes be death? You don't even get that for murder any more.

All that said, if he had had a BRS, he would have had an alternative that would clearly have been preferable to what happened.

It's by no means an isolated example.

[Pace]

Jonzarno

Wrong accident! The one I am talking about was linked in the other long thread on the BRS that ran before. I will have to find it later tonight.

Pace