Aircraft lands in Cheltenham garden
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Garstang, Preston, UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonzarno,
May have been. Definitely was vectors. Can't remember whether it was an STEC or avidyne autoplilot as was in a group with both. Did the same thing a few days earlier and it worked fine, but could have been vectored in tighter, I suppose. Got vectors for another go, same thing happened so did an SRA. I normallly align things as you suggest but perhaps i didnt this time
P1DRIVER - i didnt just look out of the window because i was in IMC. if I wasnt I wouldnt have been doing an ILS. Also I believe the accident referred to in ths thread occurred during an instrument approach and the pilot was instrument rated so the discussion relating to instrument failures is relevant.
May have been. Definitely was vectors. Can't remember whether it was an STEC or avidyne autoplilot as was in a group with both. Did the same thing a few days earlier and it worked fine, but could have been vectored in tighter, I suppose. Got vectors for another go, same thing happened so did an SRA. I normallly align things as you suggest but perhaps i didnt this time
P1DRIVER - i didnt just look out of the window because i was in IMC. if I wasnt I wouldnt have been doing an ILS. Also I believe the accident referred to in ths thread occurred during an instrument approach and the pilot was instrument rated so the discussion relating to instrument failures is relevant.
Last edited by baldwinm; 7th Jun 2013 at 18:07. Reason: addition
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you have a instrument failure. Single or might be more.
You pull the safety handle and jepardise people and property on the ground?
I think I would gain some safe height and ask for help from ATC.
I must have the wrong mindset? Perhaps someone will tell me i need to buy and fly a Cirrus
Carry on and keep safe
You pull the safety handle and jepardise people and property on the ground?
I think I would gain some safe height and ask for help from ATC.
I must have the wrong mindset? Perhaps someone will tell me i need to buy and fly a Cirrus
Carry on and keep safe
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P1Driver
If you are talking about the accident in this thread, we don't know what actually happened yet and, with respect, I think your comment is premature and unfair on the accident pilot (who may even be reading this thread) until we do know just what did happen.
If you are talking in general about how to deal with the scenario you describe, and which may or may not be what happened here, I agree with you as would any other pilot whether a Cirrus driver or not.
If you are talking about the accident in this thread, we don't know what actually happened yet and, with respect, I think your comment is premature and unfair on the accident pilot (who may even be reading this thread) until we do know just what did happen.
If you are talking in general about how to deal with the scenario you describe, and which may or may not be what happened here, I agree with you as would any other pilot whether a Cirrus driver or not.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J
I hope he is reading this and I hope thousands, no tens of thousands of other pilots are reading this. You might, just might start thinking about flying safely and within limits.
I might be premature ! But other than "control failure" please tell me Why he should have pulled the get out of a bad situation handle and leave it to the wind to take him to his crash site.
No I ,m trying not to attack the pilot but the cap might fit, might not.
I hope he is reading this and I hope thousands, no tens of thousands of other pilots are reading this. You might, just might start thinking about flying safely and within limits.
I might be premature ! But other than "control failure" please tell me Why he should have pulled the get out of a bad situation handle and leave it to the wind to take him to his crash site.
No I ,m trying not to attack the pilot but the cap might fit, might not.
Last edited by P1DRIVER; 7th Jun 2013 at 19:22.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My first and probably last post. In the last year I have lost two friends. Both were highly experienced talented pilots. Both killed in accidents, where, if they had a balistic parachute they might have survived. I do not know had it been available, if they would have used it. In both cases they were within the parameters for deployment.
Might I suggest an aircraft floating gently down with a large orange parachute is less risk than an out of control high energy aircraft smashing into the ground. After engine failure trying to stretch a glide or turn tightly to get back is a very good way to lose control. I am not a super pilot and I have met very few, I have lost a number of friends who were much better than I. A number of years ago one of the best I had seen, tried the impossible turn after engine failure. He was a lovely man and his family was devastated with his loss.
I soloed 38years ago, I have instructed and I fly for a living. I want the option, I would not want my last thought to be I wish I had a ballistic chute.
I also suspect some of these arguments surfaced in the first world war concerning giving parachutes to RFC pilots. I wonder how many died because they did not have the option.
Whatever happened here this gentleman walked away. That surely has to be the most important thing.
Might I suggest an aircraft floating gently down with a large orange parachute is less risk than an out of control high energy aircraft smashing into the ground. After engine failure trying to stretch a glide or turn tightly to get back is a very good way to lose control. I am not a super pilot and I have met very few, I have lost a number of friends who were much better than I. A number of years ago one of the best I had seen, tried the impossible turn after engine failure. He was a lovely man and his family was devastated with his loss.
I soloed 38years ago, I have instructed and I fly for a living. I want the option, I would not want my last thought to be I wish I had a ballistic chute.
I also suspect some of these arguments surfaced in the first world war concerning giving parachutes to RFC pilots. I wonder how many died because they did not have the option.
Whatever happened here this gentleman walked away. That surely has to be the most important thing.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EGKH
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK so hands up, I'm just a 70 hour PPL newbie. This post also isn't about the accident which is the subject of this thread as I don't know what happened, and I am certainly not going to judge it, but it is about the debate about chutes it sparked.
FWIW I tend towards agreement with Pace/Mad Jock/P1Driver with regards to the comment that *IF* there wasn't an overriding reason for it, it would be somewhat selfish to pull the handle rather than at least attempt to fly/glide to a position clear of obstacles below and downwind before pulling.
I also agree that surely with the backup of a chute a pilot will naturally feel a little less reservation about getting themselves into a challenging situation. I've got a SkyDemon unit and whilst I've always taken a paper plog with me on my post-ppl jaunts, can I honestly say that I won't be tempted not to 'cos the box will get me home? I know it's a daft idea, but I can't guarantee I won't be lulled into it some day. Happily I fly mostly around Kent so not difficult to find a coastline to orientate with but is that just another justification for being complacent (WRT plog I mean)?
As I say Mad Jock/Pace I very much am not trying to argue against your positions, but here's my question to you for the sake of debate:
If flying in VMC surely you should have no need for the Artificial Horizon as you should be looking out the window. Is the AH therefore not a similar temptation giving non-IR/IMC pilots some complacency that they'd have a clue what to do if they entered cloud (however misguided). So should we not also to some degree condemn the provision of the AH for non-IR/IMC pilots. And if not, how is that logically different to the position and comments regarding the reservations about pilots flying chuted Cirrii?
Again, only the spirit of friendly, interesting debate ... discuss
FWIW I tend towards agreement with Pace/Mad Jock/P1Driver with regards to the comment that *IF* there wasn't an overriding reason for it, it would be somewhat selfish to pull the handle rather than at least attempt to fly/glide to a position clear of obstacles below and downwind before pulling.
I also agree that surely with the backup of a chute a pilot will naturally feel a little less reservation about getting themselves into a challenging situation. I've got a SkyDemon unit and whilst I've always taken a paper plog with me on my post-ppl jaunts, can I honestly say that I won't be tempted not to 'cos the box will get me home? I know it's a daft idea, but I can't guarantee I won't be lulled into it some day. Happily I fly mostly around Kent so not difficult to find a coastline to orientate with but is that just another justification for being complacent (WRT plog I mean)?
As I say Mad Jock/Pace I very much am not trying to argue against your positions, but here's my question to you for the sake of debate:
If flying in VMC surely you should have no need for the Artificial Horizon as you should be looking out the window. Is the AH therefore not a similar temptation giving non-IR/IMC pilots some complacency that they'd have a clue what to do if they entered cloud (however misguided). So should we not also to some degree condemn the provision of the AH for non-IR/IMC pilots. And if not, how is that logically different to the position and comments regarding the reservations about pilots flying chuted Cirrii?
Again, only the spirit of friendly, interesting debate ... discuss
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might, just might start thinking about flying safely and within limits.
I don't recall that we have ever flown together. I'm sure I would have remembered......
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it was up to me I would teach PPL without any instruments up to starting NAV.
And yes the AH is an hindrance to some pilots.
Also funny enough break pedals cause a heap of bad habits as well.
You take a pilot who has been trained in an old slab wing PA28 which only has the hand brake or a tail dragger their technique is far better than folk trained on "modern"
stuff with differential braking.
And yes the AH is an hindrance to some pilots.
Also funny enough break pedals cause a heap of bad habits as well.
You take a pilot who has been trained in an old slab wing PA28 which only has the hand brake or a tail dragger their technique is far better than folk trained on "modern"
stuff with differential braking.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A comment or two.
In the US at any rate the overall fatal accident rate for the Cirrus is significantly better than the rest of the GA fleet. The Cirrus pilot population is doing a far better job than average.
The pilot has little control where the aircraft lands once the chute has been pulled. However the aircraft lands essentially vertically and, in terms of the impact, under control. The energy on impact is reasonably predictable. If you were to run hundreds of random landing scenarios in built up areas I wonder how many would end up on roofs, or in back gardens or running down the side of buildings. In each case the collateral damage would probably been relatively self contained. On the other hand with respect to a conventional forced landing the pilot has a significant degree of control over the landing site. However the landing is not vertical and the energy will be dissipated along the total path required to bring the aircraft to a standstill. Even with a well judged forced landing the imprint will be significantly larger. With an ill judged forced landing the results are more random. The evidence, and my experience, is there are few pilots that can accurately manage a forced landing. The evidence is that in the heat of a real emergency forced landing are often managed a great deal more poorly than in the training scenario. We all dance on the head of a pin, but I wonder if there are some that shouldn't be as quick with their claims that they could consistently and accurately manage a forced landing.
In instrument conditions with low bases there are innumerable accounts of loss of control with spin in and high energy impact; read the accident reports. The results are always fatal and the collateral damage often significant. For some reasons the pictures of a twin that ran out of fuel in the overhead of my local airport always come to mind. The pilot succeeded in removing the roof of a large house and wiped out the entire garden. Thankfully he survived but the damage was memorable. Unfortunately there are much worse accounts.
Which takes me full circle as to whether Cirrus pilots take on missions they shouldn't because of the chute and whether they are flying an aircraft that is beyond their ability. Whether they are, or aren't, there can be little doubt they are doing more with their aircraft than the mass of the GA fleet. Most Cirrus pilots, in fact the vast majority, are owners. They use their aircraft to go places. They travel over distances. By necessity they are far more likely to expose themselves to more challenging flying and more variety of weather. Yet, they perform on average better than the GA fleet as a whole.
Pace on another thread talks about options. I hope I am a reasonably cautious pilot. I hesitate a lot flying a conventional single at night, in IMC with low bases or over water (outside of glide distance of land), I hesitate a lot less in a Cirrus and by a degree less again in a twin. Going to France this week in the Cirrus I would have gone the shortest distance over the channel (perhaps old habits die to hard) but as it was in a twin I happily opted for the longest crossing. So we all make choices and in my opinion the Cirrus offers better choices than a conventional single.
This thread is about debating how those choices are exercised, more than the circumstances of this accident which as yet we know very little. The choices which you or I might make are not the choices him or her over their might make, and the choices we bravely think we might make in the comfort of our sitting room may be very different from the way we actually perform when the chips are down, the engine stops for real for the very first time for when you are least expecting it to quit and the weather somehow doesn't seem as good as the last time you did a PFL with your instructor.
As I departed over the coast this week I thought to myself how wonderful it was to see a blue sky for a change. At 500 feet over the sea there was no horizon, I could just about see the sea glancing down and the only solution was to switch to instruments. The climb continued to FL65 by which time it was just possible to continue reliant on enjoying the view through the screen. With one engine an engine failure at any time would have been challenging, more challenging than I had anticipated moments earlier on the ground. I would have made that flight before I could fly on instruments because the conditions looked fine, but I know with the minimal instrument training I then had it would have required every ounce of my ability to complete that climb or do something else, there wouldn't have been anything left to handle an engine failure or some other emergency. Would I have pulled the chute? The moment the aircraft was ahead of me you bet your life I would! What would you have done? Are you in the comfort of your arm chair writing your post on this thread so confident that you would have handled the emergency differently and the outcome would have been better?
In the US at any rate the overall fatal accident rate for the Cirrus is significantly better than the rest of the GA fleet. The Cirrus pilot population is doing a far better job than average.
The pilot has little control where the aircraft lands once the chute has been pulled. However the aircraft lands essentially vertically and, in terms of the impact, under control. The energy on impact is reasonably predictable. If you were to run hundreds of random landing scenarios in built up areas I wonder how many would end up on roofs, or in back gardens or running down the side of buildings. In each case the collateral damage would probably been relatively self contained. On the other hand with respect to a conventional forced landing the pilot has a significant degree of control over the landing site. However the landing is not vertical and the energy will be dissipated along the total path required to bring the aircraft to a standstill. Even with a well judged forced landing the imprint will be significantly larger. With an ill judged forced landing the results are more random. The evidence, and my experience, is there are few pilots that can accurately manage a forced landing. The evidence is that in the heat of a real emergency forced landing are often managed a great deal more poorly than in the training scenario. We all dance on the head of a pin, but I wonder if there are some that shouldn't be as quick with their claims that they could consistently and accurately manage a forced landing.
In instrument conditions with low bases there are innumerable accounts of loss of control with spin in and high energy impact; read the accident reports. The results are always fatal and the collateral damage often significant. For some reasons the pictures of a twin that ran out of fuel in the overhead of my local airport always come to mind. The pilot succeeded in removing the roof of a large house and wiped out the entire garden. Thankfully he survived but the damage was memorable. Unfortunately there are much worse accounts.
Which takes me full circle as to whether Cirrus pilots take on missions they shouldn't because of the chute and whether they are flying an aircraft that is beyond their ability. Whether they are, or aren't, there can be little doubt they are doing more with their aircraft than the mass of the GA fleet. Most Cirrus pilots, in fact the vast majority, are owners. They use their aircraft to go places. They travel over distances. By necessity they are far more likely to expose themselves to more challenging flying and more variety of weather. Yet, they perform on average better than the GA fleet as a whole.
Pace on another thread talks about options. I hope I am a reasonably cautious pilot. I hesitate a lot flying a conventional single at night, in IMC with low bases or over water (outside of glide distance of land), I hesitate a lot less in a Cirrus and by a degree less again in a twin. Going to France this week in the Cirrus I would have gone the shortest distance over the channel (perhaps old habits die to hard) but as it was in a twin I happily opted for the longest crossing. So we all make choices and in my opinion the Cirrus offers better choices than a conventional single.
This thread is about debating how those choices are exercised, more than the circumstances of this accident which as yet we know very little. The choices which you or I might make are not the choices him or her over their might make, and the choices we bravely think we might make in the comfort of our sitting room may be very different from the way we actually perform when the chips are down, the engine stops for real for the very first time for when you are least expecting it to quit and the weather somehow doesn't seem as good as the last time you did a PFL with your instructor.
As I departed over the coast this week I thought to myself how wonderful it was to see a blue sky for a change. At 500 feet over the sea there was no horizon, I could just about see the sea glancing down and the only solution was to switch to instruments. The climb continued to FL65 by which time it was just possible to continue reliant on enjoying the view through the screen. With one engine an engine failure at any time would have been challenging, more challenging than I had anticipated moments earlier on the ground. I would have made that flight before I could fly on instruments because the conditions looked fine, but I know with the minimal instrument training I then had it would have required every ounce of my ability to complete that climb or do something else, there wouldn't have been anything left to handle an engine failure or some other emergency. Would I have pulled the chute? The moment the aircraft was ahead of me you bet your life I would! What would you have done? Are you in the comfort of your arm chair writing your post on this thread so confident that you would have handled the emergency differently and the outcome would have been better?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pace
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.
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.
The closest example was a Cirrus pilot flying to Nantucket in 2007. Lots of details in the NTSB investigation report and public information docket if you are interested.
He was a VFR pilot almost ready for his instrument checkride. The forecasted fog came in earlier than expected and he requested the ILS, which he received clearance to fly. Unfortunately, he turned the wrong way away from the airport and instead towards the ocean, became disoriented and pulled the CAPS handle. He and his pregnant wife survived with serious injuries after the parachute snagged on a communications tower and the plane dropped hard onto the ground. The wife delivered a healthy baby. To my knowledge, the pilot is no longer flying.
Was this pilot incompetent? Obviously, by definition, a non-instrument rated pilot has not demonstrated competency to an examiner.
Girlfriend refused to fly with him? Makes for a more entertaining story. Except it was his pregnant wife. Who survived and gave birth to their child.
You see incompetence. I see a family intact after a harrowing situation.
You see flying IMC. I see a stressful situation in which a pilot makes a very bad judgement decision.
We're both right.
Do you agree this story is not unique? VFR-in-IMC situations happen way too often in all makes of GA aircraft.
Cheers
Rick
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am with Pace on this ... indeed I hope the yellow bellied bas***rd that pulled his chute over my friends and relatives gets the book thrown at him. A huge fine and time in jail might dent some of his detestable selfish arrogance.
This 'pilot' showed incompetence on a grand scale. Having decided to descend by BRS onto a densely populated city, he compounds the obscenity by continuing to run the engine. Sort of a rotating sword of Damocles able to chop up kids, parents, and anyone unable to get out of his way. I hope he gets what he deserves ... hero???? don't make me vomit
This 'pilot' showed incompetence on a grand scale. Having decided to descend by BRS onto a densely populated city, he compounds the obscenity by continuing to run the engine. Sort of a rotating sword of Damocles able to chop up kids, parents, and anyone unable to get out of his way. I hope he gets what he deserves ... hero???? don't make me vomit
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vee-tail-1
I am with Pace on this ... indeed I hope the yellow bellied bas***rd that pulled his chute over my friends and relatives gets the book thrown at him. A huge fine and time in jail might dent some of his detestable selfish arrogance.
This 'pilot' showed incompetence on a grand scale. Having decided to descend by BRS onto a densely populated city, he compounds the obscenity by continuing to run the engine. Sort of a rotating sword of Damocles able to chop up kids, parents, and anyone unable to get out of his way. I hope he gets what he deserves ... hero???? don't make me vomit
This 'pilot' showed incompetence on a grand scale. Having decided to descend by BRS onto a densely populated city, he compounds the obscenity by continuing to run the engine. Sort of a rotating sword of Damocles able to chop up kids, parents, and anyone unable to get out of his way. I hope he gets what he deserves ... hero???? don't make me vomit
Just curious. Would you say the same things about pilots who die when a plane crashes into a residential neighborhood?
By coincidence, just saw a news report that a King Air 200 crashed into three homes and set them on fire. Location in residential area near Baton Rouge, the capital of Louisiana.
King Air is a twin-engine plane often flown by professional pilots, but maybe not. Surely you judge this King Air pilot the same way? Or not because no Cirrus parachute system? Or is a death penalty suitable justice for your sensibility?
Cheers
Rick
Last edited by sdbeach; 8th Jun 2013 at 00:27.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vee-Tail-1
You obviously have insights into the cause of this accident that are not available to the rest of us and perhaps you would share them?
What we do know so far is that the pilot decided to pull the parachute because, for whatever reason, good or bad, he could not control the plane to a safe landing.
Given that he was in that situation, given the METARS at the time, possibly (again, we don't know for sure) in IMC and therefore unable to see where he was going: let's examine the consequences (not his intentions) of his two choices:
1. Pull the chute
He announces what he has done with a loud bang as the rocket fires and the parachute deploys.
He descends at 17 KTS, more or less vertically, clearly visible to everyone on the ground to the extent that people have time to pull out a smartphone, open the camera app and start filming once he is clear of clouds and takes over 30 seconds to reach the ground.
The mistake he apparently did make was to forget to turn off his engine.
2. He doesn't pull
He loses control of the plane and hits the ground at not less than 70 KTS, the clean stall speed of an SR22, obviously with the engine still running as well.
In doing that he has to dissipate at least seventeen times the amount of energy compared to the CAPS descent. As you know energy is a function of the square of speed so if he hit at, say, 100 KTS the amount of energy would be 34 times as much.
If he has completely lost control (and I repeat, we still don't know if or why) there's every chance it could be a spiral dive at a much higher speed with even less warning to those on the ground, even more energy to dissipate and no control whatever over what he hits.
As I say, we don't know what caused the problem. At this stage, all we can sensibly do is to analyse the consequences of the fact that the pilot recognised that he had a problem and followed his training in dealing with it.
A simple analysis of the physics involved as set out above shows that he did the right thing and that is borne out by what actually happened: nobody was killed, not only in this case, but also in every single other CAPS deployment within design limits that there has ever been.
Was he a hero (your word)?
No, I don't think so because that implies an act of courage carried out for the benefit of others.
Was he a good pilot?
In terms of his flying ability and aircraft control, we don't know because - I stress again - we don't know what caused the incident.
In terms of his decision to pull? You bet! It could have been so much worse both for him and for your friends on the ground.
You obviously have insights into the cause of this accident that are not available to the rest of us and perhaps you would share them?
What we do know so far is that the pilot decided to pull the parachute because, for whatever reason, good or bad, he could not control the plane to a safe landing.
Given that he was in that situation, given the METARS at the time, possibly (again, we don't know for sure) in IMC and therefore unable to see where he was going: let's examine the consequences (not his intentions) of his two choices:
1. Pull the chute
He announces what he has done with a loud bang as the rocket fires and the parachute deploys.
He descends at 17 KTS, more or less vertically, clearly visible to everyone on the ground to the extent that people have time to pull out a smartphone, open the camera app and start filming once he is clear of clouds and takes over 30 seconds to reach the ground.
The mistake he apparently did make was to forget to turn off his engine.
2. He doesn't pull
He loses control of the plane and hits the ground at not less than 70 KTS, the clean stall speed of an SR22, obviously with the engine still running as well.
In doing that he has to dissipate at least seventeen times the amount of energy compared to the CAPS descent. As you know energy is a function of the square of speed so if he hit at, say, 100 KTS the amount of energy would be 34 times as much.
If he has completely lost control (and I repeat, we still don't know if or why) there's every chance it could be a spiral dive at a much higher speed with even less warning to those on the ground, even more energy to dissipate and no control whatever over what he hits.
As I say, we don't know what caused the problem. At this stage, all we can sensibly do is to analyse the consequences of the fact that the pilot recognised that he had a problem and followed his training in dealing with it.
A simple analysis of the physics involved as set out above shows that he did the right thing and that is borne out by what actually happened: nobody was killed, not only in this case, but also in every single other CAPS deployment within design limits that there has ever been.
Was he a hero (your word)?
No, I don't think so because that implies an act of courage carried out for the benefit of others.
Was he a good pilot?
In terms of his flying ability and aircraft control, we don't know because - I stress again - we don't know what caused the incident.
In terms of his decision to pull? You bet! It could have been so much worse both for him and for your friends on the ground.
A very interesting thread. In post number 22, Jonzarno posted a link to a one-hour talk by Rick Beach of the Cirrus Owner's Association. I'll repost the link here for convenience:
I took the opportunity to view the whole video and it certainly was an eye-opener. His opinion, based on accident statistics, was that using CAPS should be considered as a first option in an emergency, rather than as a last resort. I recommend it to everyone interested in the topic.
However, my reason for this post was my stunned reaction to comments by Rick during the talk. He stated that he had never spun an aircraft and was not interested in doing so!
I took the opportunity to view the whole video and it certainly was an eye-opener. His opinion, based on accident statistics, was that using CAPS should be considered as a first option in an emergency, rather than as a last resort. I recommend it to everyone interested in the topic.
However, my reason for this post was my stunned reaction to comments by Rick during the talk. He stated that he had never spun an aircraft and was not interested in doing so!
I know I'm not proficient in recovering from spins - I've never done it and I'm not about to go ... it's not my purpose in life to be an acrobatic pilot."
Last edited by India Four Two; 8th Jun 2013 at 07:03.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unsure ?
I can't make up my mind if this or the Inccident at Heathrow thread currently running on R&N is the worst thread I have seen on Pprune.
What both threads have in common is that the outcome of both incidents was sucsesfull and all the people involved walked away without injury.
However in both cases we have reams of opinion (some of it utterly uninformed) dressed up as fact, we also see some of the armchair experts being very quick to judge those involved.
This forum is always quick to criticise the newspapers for bad reporting but in these two threads the only difference I can see between a lot of the posts and what the newspapers are writing is that on Pprune the aviation jargon is correct.
What both threads have in common is that the outcome of both incidents was sucsesfull and all the people involved walked away without injury.
However in both cases we have reams of opinion (some of it utterly uninformed) dressed up as fact, we also see some of the armchair experts being very quick to judge those involved.
This forum is always quick to criticise the newspapers for bad reporting but in these two threads the only difference I can see between a lot of the posts and what the newspapers are writing is that on Pprune the aviation jargon is correct.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"
It's also a repeat of arguments that have been made on many occasions and which I have never seen refuted by anything other than prejudice unsupported by any facts or real data.
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"
It's also a repeat of arguments that have been made on many occasions and which I have never seen refuted by anything other than prejudice unsupported by any facts or real data.