Aircraft lands in Cheltenham garden
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Spinning doesn't really press my buttons at all. Yes I used to spin the tommy with students and could patter it but I was never that type of instructor that would go and do it for ****s and giggles. If there was a training reason to do it no problem.
But even to this day not having spun a plane for 5-6 years I have a third sense when things aren't looking right and we are getting near a dangerous attitude. And more importantly how to get away from it.
Spinning quite rightly was removed from the PPL syllabus, the ppl instructors in general didn't have a clue what they were doing. And the students weren't at the point they could either understand what was going on or the cause to give the effect.
But a session or a couple of sessions with an experienced aero instructor even if you have zero intention of ever doing it yours self should be looked on as a skill enhancement for an experienced pilot. And even though it may cost a bit more to go do it in a decent aero machine (no point doing in in a Cessna aerobat) it would certainly be a useful hour with an instructor for experience revalidation.
Instead of looking for technology to cover your gash skills look for training and experience.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vee tail,
NOTHING HAPPENED TO ANYONE! What part of that don't you get?
Could have, might have? The sky could fall on your precious friends anytime. Or the earth open an swallow them. Sotty beaming them away. The Borges assimilating them. And so on.
NOTHING HAPPENED TO ANYONE! What part of that don't you get?
Could have, might have? The sky could fall on your precious friends anytime. Or the earth open an swallow them. Sotty beaming them away. The Borges assimilating them. And so on.
Last edited by thborchert; 8th Jun 2013 at 08:21.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
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
There are times such as Pilot imminent incapacitation over a built up area, structural failure, unrecoverable loss of control, too low to glide clear where I would recommend pulling the chute over a built up area as that action is the lesser of two evils.
What I would find inexcusable and a cowardly act would be a pilot pulling the chute over a built up area where he has altitude to glide clear even if by gliding clear he increased the risk to himself and that I stand by.
I reiterate what MJ says technology cannot be a mask for a lack of skills and that is concerning. Lack of skills appear again and again in the accident stats
Once the chute is pulled the pilot has no control over its landing or rather crashing point. The winds will control that!
I find the argument that a Cirrus has not to date fallen on anybodies head as pathetic because it WILL happen and could have happened in this case! It was pure luck and no more.
An aircraft falling vertically at 25mph (car speeds) and moving at 25 mph horizontally will do a lot of damage.
The aircraft is my favorite choice and partly because of the availability of the chute. So I support the chute 100% I do not support its use for every little emergency and feel we should look at our skills responsibly as well as when and when not to use the chute responsibly.
Finally I do consider the comfort zone of the chute and technology does encourage pilots to fly in conditions beyond their abilities and we need to be aware of that.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 8th Jun 2013 at 08:45.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just read somewhere else that he was on a RNAV approach.
They changed runway ends on him.
He then elected to take the autopilot out because it would have caused problems programing the box of tricks. Lost his SA got disorientated and pulled the handle.
Just to note if this true.
Guys use your heading mode and alt hold.
And brief yourself that in the event that your previous approach clearance is cancelled you will carry out the missed approach and go to the hold until you are set up for the next. You will more than likely find that the controller will delay the runway swap until your on the ground because you will block the procedure until your ready to go again. Its a pretty standard screw everyone else up for the loco wanting a direct arrival trick. If you know what they are doing you can pretty much block the loco and after a couple of times the loco crew will stop asking for it or the controller will give up trying to prioritise the wishes of the shiny jet.
Also given the choice between an RNAV and a traditional instrument approach always go for a traditional approach backed up by the box of tricks. In the event of anything changing we have to work like one armed paper hangers to get the box of tricks programed and fly on a RNAV. And that's two crew I can imagine what its like for a single crew. Traditional approach you flick a radio if its not already set and your pretty much sorted pull the plate off and the other end is underneath and straight into the out bound radial.
Mind you lot probably don't have the plate for the other end sitting under the current one in likely conditions for a runway change. But hey oh if you have a parachute you don't need to bother.
They changed runway ends on him.
He then elected to take the autopilot out because it would have caused problems programing the box of tricks. Lost his SA got disorientated and pulled the handle.
Just to note if this true.
Guys use your heading mode and alt hold.
And brief yourself that in the event that your previous approach clearance is cancelled you will carry out the missed approach and go to the hold until you are set up for the next. You will more than likely find that the controller will delay the runway swap until your on the ground because you will block the procedure until your ready to go again. Its a pretty standard screw everyone else up for the loco wanting a direct arrival trick. If you know what they are doing you can pretty much block the loco and after a couple of times the loco crew will stop asking for it or the controller will give up trying to prioritise the wishes of the shiny jet.
Also given the choice between an RNAV and a traditional instrument approach always go for a traditional approach backed up by the box of tricks. In the event of anything changing we have to work like one armed paper hangers to get the box of tricks programed and fly on a RNAV. And that's two crew I can imagine what its like for a single crew. Traditional approach you flick a radio if its not already set and your pretty much sorted pull the plate off and the other end is underneath and straight into the out bound radial.
Mind you lot probably don't have the plate for the other end sitting under the current one in likely conditions for a runway change. But hey oh if you have a parachute you don't need to bother.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe it's something to do with the times we live in ... maybe it's a reflection of the widening gap between the rich and the rest of us. There is arrogance on the roads, on the street, and indeed in the air, particularly shown by some posters here. When will some here get it?! ... you do not have the right to endanger innocent lives on the ground ... you are privileged to play with your toys, and if it gets dangerous go somewhere safe to die or live according to your skills.
People with low skills and lots of money can buy expensive aircraft and fly. The restraints of self preservation, felt by such folk before BRS, kept them from taking stupid risks that might have endangered others. Now those idiots can go anywhere confident that the chute will save them when it all turns to worms ... and never mind the poor sods and their children who just might be killed so that the 'sky gods' can have their fun.
People with low skills and lots of money can buy expensive aircraft and fly. The restraints of self preservation, felt by such folk before BRS, kept them from taking stupid risks that might have endangered others. Now those idiots can go anywhere confident that the chute will save them when it all turns to worms ... and never mind the poor sods and their children who just might be killed so that the 'sky gods' can have their fun.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jesus Christ, there are a lot of Morons on Pprune....Some of them hide behind these forums pretending to be Sky Gods when in fact they are probably just flightsimers or wierdos who pretend to be pilots.....You can tell by the responses of some people.
Lets assume for a moment that THIS PILOT WAS GOING TO DIE IF HE DIDN'T PULL THE HANDLE....Was he right to pull? YES of course he was. It doesn't matter the reason he was going to die, he made completely the right decision.
Cranfield - Recently a PA38 crashed their, seriously injuring two people. One was reported as a FI. The FI apparently tried to turn back to the field and messed it up...People make mistakes all the time, or else we wouldn't have any form or Pilot Error to report about (and 75% of all accidents are Pilot Error). IF THE REPORTS ARE CORRECT........Would you call this pilot a "Yellow Bellied B**tard" (Other posters words, not mine) and should they get the book thrown at them for allegedly making a mistake almost killing a passenger? NO of course not, it was a mistake.
In both the two accidents above NONE OF US WERE THERE so none of us can comment on EXACTLY the facts, what was going through the pilot's mind at the time, and what the situation was, so there is no need for language like the above poster used about a fellow pilot who may or may not have made a mistake.
IMHO Cirrus has no worse accident stats than any other SEP light aircraft - we have numerous PA28's / PA38's /C172's etc., crash each year and on more than one occasion in recent years flight into IMC by a VFR pilot. The differences in these instances have been all onboard were killed, whereas in the Cirrus, everyone survived.
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.
Cranfield - Recently a PA38 crashed their, seriously injuring two people. One was reported as a FI. The FI apparently tried to turn back to the field and messed it up...People make mistakes all the time, or else we wouldn't have any form or Pilot Error to report about (and 75% of all accidents are Pilot Error). IF THE REPORTS ARE CORRECT........Would you call this pilot a "Yellow Bellied B**tard" (Other posters words, not mine) and should they get the book thrown at them for allegedly making a mistake almost killing a passenger? NO of course not, it was a mistake.
In both the two accidents above NONE OF US WERE THERE so none of us can comment on EXACTLY the facts, what was going through the pilot's mind at the time, and what the situation was, so there is no need for language like the above poster used about a fellow pilot who may or may not have made a mistake.
IMHO Cirrus has no worse accident stats than any other SEP light aircraft - we have numerous PA28's / PA38's /C172's etc., crash each year and on more than one occasion in recent years flight into IMC by a VFR pilot. The differences in these instances have been all onboard were killed, whereas in the Cirrus, everyone survived.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: .
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting. Bizarrely by continuing to run the engine actually he was helping people on the ground. Unless you happen to be totally deaf and transfixed by a very good book I think 99.9% of the population would notice the aircraft and the spinning blade of death!!!
Anyone would look up. See the aircraft. The large orange parachute. Hear the engine and move to one side. I would love to know who would still stand there screaming while rooted to the spot and then become a victim of the aforementioned spinning blade of death! I think the fact people took the time to film the event does show how noticeable it is!!
Good decision to deploy the chute? Without all the facts who knows? Do people survive forced landings....yes. Do they get them wrong....yes. Do they often end in fatalities over built up areas.....very often. Look at a couple of recent attempts to glide into Barton after a loss of power.
Is technology masking a lack of skills. Yes. Will some people use this chute as a reason to not practice or think about what to do when things go sideways. Very likely!
The fact of the matter is this guy deployed his chute and no-one was killed. It will be interesting to see exactly why he deployed it and what options he had available.
However if it is true that it was following a runway change and then his being unable to simply fly and navigate then that is truly shocking. This points to a deeper issue. Training and recertification. If a runway change is placing a pilot in the position where his options are:
A) lose control and crash following total loss of SA
B) bang out a chute and float down
Then this is just not good enough. This should just NOT be occurring. His deploying of the chute might have been the correct thing to do for him at the time given his skill set etc. and if that's the case then something needs to be done!!
He might have made the right call. However the system failed allowing him to be there in the first place.
Anyone would look up. See the aircraft. The large orange parachute. Hear the engine and move to one side. I would love to know who would still stand there screaming while rooted to the spot and then become a victim of the aforementioned spinning blade of death! I think the fact people took the time to film the event does show how noticeable it is!!
Good decision to deploy the chute? Without all the facts who knows? Do people survive forced landings....yes. Do they get them wrong....yes. Do they often end in fatalities over built up areas.....very often. Look at a couple of recent attempts to glide into Barton after a loss of power.
Is technology masking a lack of skills. Yes. Will some people use this chute as a reason to not practice or think about what to do when things go sideways. Very likely!
The fact of the matter is this guy deployed his chute and no-one was killed. It will be interesting to see exactly why he deployed it and what options he had available.
However if it is true that it was following a runway change and then his being unable to simply fly and navigate then that is truly shocking. This points to a deeper issue. Training and recertification. If a runway change is placing a pilot in the position where his options are:
A) lose control and crash following total loss of SA
B) bang out a chute and float down
Then this is just not good enough. This should just NOT be occurring. His deploying of the chute might have been the correct thing to do for him at the time given his skill set etc. and if that's the case then something needs to be done!!
He might have made the right call. However the system failed allowing him to be there in the first place.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishall
I appreciate your comments but there is a reason for all this ?
Firstly the Cirrus is unique for its factory fitted BRS system and advanced technology!
It offers the possibility because of the BRS of flying in the face of conventional training!
An example is engine failure where some promote the BRS as a standard action
It is only natural that the aircraft will generate heated discussion,
On literally every thread the posters refer pilots to the POH with the argument that the manufacturer knows best!
The manufacturer does not recommend use of the BRS except it use should be considered if no suitable landing site is available ! They recommend a traditional forced landing in the event of engine failures!
Other bodies recommend the BRS for everything and anything and that is equally a dangerous stance to take
So do not be surprised if heated debate occurs on where and when to use it
Pace
I appreciate your comments but there is a reason for all this ?
Firstly the Cirrus is unique for its factory fitted BRS system and advanced technology!
It offers the possibility because of the BRS of flying in the face of conventional training!
An example is engine failure where some promote the BRS as a standard action
It is only natural that the aircraft will generate heated discussion,
On literally every thread the posters refer pilots to the POH with the argument that the manufacturer knows best!
The manufacturer does not recommend use of the BRS except it use should be considered if no suitable landing site is available ! They recommend a traditional forced landing in the event of engine failures!
Other bodies recommend the BRS for everything and anything and that is equally a dangerous stance to take
So do not be surprised if heated debate occurs on where and when to use it
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK I will try to keep it civil, but some here are wilfully ignoring a very important fact. We private pilots are privileged to fly ... that is we don't have a right to fly, at least in UK airspace. Most particularly in exercising our privilege we are expected not to endanger anyone or anything on the ground. We choose to fly, we take the risks, and we should always make the hard choice to crash land without harm to innocents. Pulling the chute over a congested area is the ultimate expression of selfishness, 'me first' and fcku you!
If use of the chute for any reason in any area becomes the norm, then we will see 'pilots' landing on motorways and roads. Light aircraft and their pilots will be rightly seen by the public as dangerous menaces, and demand yet more closure of GA airfields.
I say again: "WE CHOOSE TO FLY, WE SHOULD TAKE THE RISKS"
If use of the chute for any reason in any area becomes the norm, then we will see 'pilots' landing on motorways and roads. Light aircraft and their pilots will be rightly seen by the public as dangerous menaces, and demand yet more closure of GA airfields.
I say again: "WE CHOOSE TO FLY, WE SHOULD TAKE THE RISKS"
I find it interesting that when someone flying say a Bonanza looses SA and then control of the aircraft and crashes killing everyone, you don't seem to get 188 posts in the first day and half.
Yet a soon as somebody pulls the handle on a Cirrus the rush to judge the almost invariably still alive pilot who steps from the intact, frequently repairable airplane; is overwhelming.
It seems to me that many people take the issue extremely personally, like it somehow diminishes the value of their pilots license when somebody pulls the chute.
To those posters I ask; do you really believe that death should be the punishment for screwing up ?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Madjock,Pace, Veetail 1 and others
We are, I,m affraid, dealing with people who don,t seem to know the basics. A.N.C. (At 76 though the pilot should know ?)
Looking at the whole Aviation industry world wide and the way it trains future pilots, I think this is just the tip of the solid cold water.
Spins ? Never been shown or practiced the insipient stages. Mmmmm.
Relying on a box of tricks to get them down from IMC. (When sometimes they shouldn.t even be there,not saying this is the case here.)
Yes, you are right - The parachute did its job.
You guys carry on.
We are, I,m affraid, dealing with people who don,t seem to know the basics. A.N.C. (At 76 though the pilot should know ?)
Looking at the whole Aviation industry world wide and the way it trains future pilots, I think this is just the tip of the solid cold water.
Spins ? Never been shown or practiced the insipient stages. Mmmmm.
Relying on a box of tricks to get them down from IMC. (When sometimes they shouldn.t even be there,not saying this is the case here.)
Yes, you are right - The parachute did its job.
You guys carry on.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Garstang, Preston, UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys use your heading mode and alt hold.
That hoary old chestnut again
. In the US and Canada the number of spin accidents decreased when spins were removed from the PPL syllabus.Like most of the posters on this thread and their inaccurate and/or ignorant posts on the Cirrus chute pull statistics, no need to let the facts get in the way of the posturing.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of the route cause for these disagreements must lie with the lack of direction by the manufacturer.
The POH is the bible for operations but the manufacturer have been reluctant to give guidance on a piece of equipment which is standard fit.
Ok if the BRS was an addon or a not officially approved mod then I could understand their stance but this is an integral part of the aircraft.
All that is mentioned in the POH is engine failure. Fly a conventional forced landing to a suitable site and only if a suitable site does not exist CONSIDER the use of the chute.
Detailed opinion on its use appears to come from outside bodies which is not acceptable. The POH is the Bible.
In the early days when little operational data was available I could understand the manufacturer being nervous but now operational data is available its about time the manufacturers guidance on the chutes use is put in the POH
Pace
The POH is the bible for operations but the manufacturer have been reluctant to give guidance on a piece of equipment which is standard fit.
Ok if the BRS was an addon or a not officially approved mod then I could understand their stance but this is an integral part of the aircraft.
All that is mentioned in the POH is engine failure. Fly a conventional forced landing to a suitable site and only if a suitable site does not exist CONSIDER the use of the chute.
Detailed opinion on its use appears to come from outside bodies which is not acceptable. The POH is the Bible.
In the early days when little operational data was available I could understand the manufacturer being nervous but now operational data is available its about time the manufacturers guidance on the chutes use is put in the POH
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ vee tail 1
Perhaps the irony has escaped you? the V-tail Bonanza was a "high-performance" aircraft of it's day....bought , stereotypically, by Doctors, dentists and lawyers who'se wallets bought what their skills could not keep up with......hence the popular soubriquet "Widow maker"
Do you really think that every high-performance car or motorcycle sold, is bought by an adequately skilled driver?....same here, The big issue, as i see it, in this particular incident, is why he didn't climb clear or descend into VMC, if , indeed that was his SA problem.
Sounds like the aircraft got ahead of him when an unplanned change was thrust upon him. Perhaps he should have limited himself to a Chief or similar.... capable of really slow , controlled flight with plenty of time for old brains to machinate.
just the opinion of a non-pilot, so probably not worth a carrot.
(can't be bothered with Flight Sim! - but have a RC helicopter and sim! )
People with low skills and lots of money can buy expensive aircraft and fly. The restraints of self preservation, felt by such folk before BRS, kept them from taking stupid risks that might have endangered others
Do you really think that every high-performance car or motorcycle sold, is bought by an adequately skilled driver?....same here, The big issue, as i see it, in this particular incident, is why he didn't climb clear or descend into VMC, if , indeed that was his SA problem.
Sounds like the aircraft got ahead of him when an unplanned change was thrust upon him. Perhaps he should have limited himself to a Chief or similar.... capable of really slow , controlled flight with plenty of time for old brains to machinate.
just the opinion of a non-pilot, so probably not worth a carrot.
(can't be bothered with Flight Sim! - but have a RC helicopter and sim! )
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace,
Since you keep coming back to the danger to those on the ground, here's my thinking:
1. Statistically, people on the ground get rarely hurt in GA aircraft accidents. It happens, but it is exceedingly rare.
2. By using a chute, I am dramatically reducing both my impact energy and my footprint during a crash or emergency landing.
Hence, among the multitude of things to considers during a forced landing, damage to people on the ground is one of them, but it is not front and center since it is a low probability event. As, I have to add, this CAPS landing in a impressively demonstrates.
Since you keep coming back to the danger to those on the ground, here's my thinking:
1. Statistically, people on the ground get rarely hurt in GA aircraft accidents. It happens, but it is exceedingly rare.
2. By using a chute, I am dramatically reducing both my impact energy and my footprint during a crash or emergency landing.
Hence, among the multitude of things to considers during a forced landing, damage to people on the ground is one of them, but it is not front and center since it is a low probability event. As, I have to add, this CAPS landing in a impressively demonstrates.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a lot of the debate is due to attitude and "you can't teach an old dog new tricks". Maybe even jealousy?
Anyway, this guy did the right thing. Pulling the chute minimised energy from his crash, gave people on the ground forewarning of his arrival, and not a single person was hurt. How can one argue with this? Power off landing, bang, there goes a house as the options are bad, loss of control - high speed impact into a school playground....who knows what the outcome would have been, and NO ONE would have known before the incident. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and just maybe the pilot would have done things differently next time, but that is learning.
Anyway we still don't know why the accident happened. if it was loss of control in IMC then quite probably the chute saved a lot of lives. You can argue whether or not he should have been there, but that wouldn't have been much good to those that had been killed so I don't know why we bother arguing about stuff like this.
Anyway, this guy did the right thing. Pulling the chute minimised energy from his crash, gave people on the ground forewarning of his arrival, and not a single person was hurt. How can one argue with this? Power off landing, bang, there goes a house as the options are bad, loss of control - high speed impact into a school playground....who knows what the outcome would have been, and NO ONE would have known before the incident. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and just maybe the pilot would have done things differently next time, but that is learning.
Anyway we still don't know why the accident happened. if it was loss of control in IMC then quite probably the chute saved a lot of lives. You can argue whether or not he should have been there, but that wouldn't have been much good to those that had been killed so I don't know why we bother arguing about stuff like this.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beginning to see a really obvious difference between our attitudes and opinions as flyers and the more reasonable and balanced views of pilots who live outside the UK....there really is a lot of unbalanced nonsense being spouted
As for lack of guidance by the manufacturer they have provided a wealth of information and guidance to their official training network so if you have completed formal Cirrus training from a CSIP you will know exactly what to do and when to do it without any ambiguity whatsoever... If you haven't had this training you will not be so well informed
If you are going to fly a Cirrus make sure you train with a CSIP, maintain currency and attend recurrence training events.
As for lack of guidance by the manufacturer they have provided a wealth of information and guidance to their official training network so if you have completed formal Cirrus training from a CSIP you will know exactly what to do and when to do it without any ambiguity whatsoever... If you haven't had this training you will not be so well informed
If you are going to fly a Cirrus make sure you train with a CSIP, maintain currency and attend recurrence training events.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 430 Likes
on
227 Posts
Hence, among the multitude of things to considers during a forced landing, damage to people on the ground is one of them, but it is not front and center since it is a low probability event.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, three points:
1. The British low flying rules are more strict than elsewhere.
2. One could argue people were not in danger in this case (or most others), as the result shows.
3. IMHO, anyone who is flying in the densely populated parts of Europe and thinks he can always fly in a way to be sure not to hit anyone on the ground is very much kidding themselves.
1. The British low flying rules are more strict than elsewhere.
2. One could argue people were not in danger in this case (or most others), as the result shows.
3. IMHO, anyone who is flying in the densely populated parts of Europe and thinks he can always fly in a way to be sure not to hit anyone on the ground is very much kidding themselves.