SR22 Parachute Deployment - Remarkable Video
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do people really think it was a good idea to use the parachute in this case? I am not convinced.
The ditching speed of a 172 will be about 50 knots (so into wind the same gentle arrival). However, on a day with only 10 knots of wind, the sr22 will splash down and not be towed into the water by the chute (hence a virtual certainty of stepping into the raft dry), whereas the non-parachute plane will be sliding into the water with 2.5 times the energy, which may be sufficient to risk submarining, flipping on contact, or stoving in the windshield and flooding. This is not to say these always happen, but there is certainly a reasonable frequency for people who have ditched to need to extract themselves from an upside down, or water filled cockpit.
Having watched the video, the only reasons I wouldn't prefer to parachute in would be, 1 - an issue at low level so I couldn't count on being deployed into a level attitude, 2 - ditching in winds over 30 knots where you are going slower flying than floating. I am struggling to see the significant downside on a low wind day. If it is blowing 30-40 on the ground, then I can buy the very significant downside of not comming to a stop when you ditch, but being dragged around.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whereas the non-parachute plane will be sliding into the water with 2.5 times the energy
As I understand it the actual conditions were winds of 28 knots and seas of 6-8 feet: not easy to judge a ditching.
A couple more points on the dynamics of this incident:
That 28 knot wind is most probably in the same direction as the waves are moving so, if you land into the wind you are likely to impact the face of a 6 - 8 ft wave that is being blown towards you.
If you try to land parallel to the waves, you exceed the demonstrated crosswind performance of the plane (20 KTS)
In addition, there are also mostly full ferry tanks in the plane (the cause of the problem was that the fuel couldn't get from the ferry tanks to the engine) and there is a risk that they might shift forward in a horizontal impact.
Last edited by Jonzarno; 27th Jan 2015 at 16:32. Reason: Add additional dynamics comments
There was a very large sea running with high winds. Ditching a fixed gear airplane in these conditions would be much more difficult than the same process on a calm day with no swell.
To me this is one of the most cut and dried examples of the value of the airframe parachute.
There seems to be a few posters that always rubbish the concept of the airframe parachute in general and the Cirrus in particular, no matter what the circumstances. The pilot of this aircraft undid his seat belt and stepped out of the aircraft after it landed under the parachute, something that 70 or so other Cirrus pilots and passengers were able to do after successful parachute deployments.
I am personally struggling to see the downside here...
To me this is one of the most cut and dried examples of the value of the airframe parachute.
There seems to be a few posters that always rubbish the concept of the airframe parachute in general and the Cirrus in particular, no matter what the circumstances. The pilot of this aircraft undid his seat belt and stepped out of the aircraft after it landed under the parachute, something that 70 or so other Cirrus pilots and passengers were able to do after successful parachute deployments.
I am personally struggling to see the downside here...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity so it's actually more like nine times the energy (ca 17 KTS under the chute vs ca 50 KTS for the ditching)
As I understand it the actual conditions were winds of 28 knots and seas of 6-8 feet: not easy to judge a ditching.
As I understand it the actual conditions were winds of 28 knots and seas of 6-8 feet: not easy to judge a ditching.
The landing we observed was at 25knts (the wind was 25-28 so I used the lower number)
A C172 ditching in low wind (10 knots in my example) would be a landing at 40 knots (allowing for 10 knot reduction by landing into wind)
(40/25)^2 = 2.5 which is the times the energy when ditching a non-parachute aircraft in benign conditions vs the conditions in which this aircraft ditched. Hence, my peference to be coming down on a chute in anything other than winds over 30 knots (as the SR22 would probably be closer to 60 knots at touchdown)
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MMF
Sorry, I misread your post and you posted this while I was editing my post.
I see your point although the landing looked quite vertical with respect to the moving sea.
Sorry, I misread your post and you posted this while I was editing my post.
I see your point although the landing looked quite vertical with respect to the moving sea.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am personally struggling to see the downside here...
But, I think that both of those factors have some bearing on the choice to acquire/operate that system or not....
The chute on the Cirrus has once again proved it's worth. I don't know why people do not think it a great concept in a fantastic aircraft. The Cirrus seems to attract a certain amount of flak compared to other similar aircraft.
I flew the Cirrus for a while and loved having it at my disposal. It doesn't suit my type of flying anymore as I have gone right back to grass roots but I still consider it a great machine for the type of flying it is built for.
Regarding the weight and extra cost of the system, I could understand this argument if you were thinking of retro fitting a chute in a PA28 or something. The Cirrus however is built around this system and still gives good performance. It is what it is and comes with a chute. I f you are worried about the extra cost then you don't buy a SR20/SR22, simples. If you want the added safety then you do.
When I was doing my Cirrus conversion I had conversations with the instructors about where and when it would be a good idea to pull the handle. I am sure every pilot with this system at their disposal has their own set of circumstances in mind. It is not a quick fix get out of trouble system, it is likely to write off the aircraft and I don't know any Cirrus pilots that think of it that way.
In regards to this incident I would have made the same decision. . The Cirrus had one person on board, pulling the chute will give you time to try and sort out the raft and get the canopy cracked open so you can be out as soon as it hits the water. It will also give a clear indication from a distance that you are going down and alert any passing traffic to come to your assistance. There is also the issue of waves and swell. You do not want to end up straight under the water, especially with lots of fuel on board, much better to pancake onto the surface ready to jump out and grab the raft. Add to this the fact that the aircraft is very likely to not be recovered when ditching at sea, so writing it off is not a worry, I wouldn't hesitate but to pull the chute.
If it had been over ground with flat areas or even still water I would elect to land under control.
I flew the Cirrus for a while and loved having it at my disposal. It doesn't suit my type of flying anymore as I have gone right back to grass roots but I still consider it a great machine for the type of flying it is built for.
Regarding the weight and extra cost of the system, I could understand this argument if you were thinking of retro fitting a chute in a PA28 or something. The Cirrus however is built around this system and still gives good performance. It is what it is and comes with a chute. I f you are worried about the extra cost then you don't buy a SR20/SR22, simples. If you want the added safety then you do.
When I was doing my Cirrus conversion I had conversations with the instructors about where and when it would be a good idea to pull the handle. I am sure every pilot with this system at their disposal has their own set of circumstances in mind. It is not a quick fix get out of trouble system, it is likely to write off the aircraft and I don't know any Cirrus pilots that think of it that way.
In regards to this incident I would have made the same decision. . The Cirrus had one person on board, pulling the chute will give you time to try and sort out the raft and get the canopy cracked open so you can be out as soon as it hits the water. It will also give a clear indication from a distance that you are going down and alert any passing traffic to come to your assistance. There is also the issue of waves and swell. You do not want to end up straight under the water, especially with lots of fuel on board, much better to pancake onto the surface ready to jump out and grab the raft. Add to this the fact that the aircraft is very likely to not be recovered when ditching at sea, so writing it off is not a worry, I wouldn't hesitate but to pull the chute.
If it had been over ground with flat areas or even still water I would elect to land under control.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you try to land parallel to the waves, you exceed the demonstrated crosswind performance of the plane (20 KTS)
As for the question of whether to use the chute for a ditching or not. I read all the horrors about landing on water as the landing gear is designed to collapse to absorb the energy and landing on water can result in back injury.
After watching the video I'd take the chute every time.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not from a regulatory compliance point of view, but I would be very scared of catching a wingtip in one of those swells and cartwheeling in at 60 KTS.
IMHO there is absolutely no reason not to pull in these circumstances as the video of the landing clearly demonstrates. Why risk it?
As for landing on water causing back injury, there is one case of a pilot who pulled over water at low level who did hurt his back but was still able to exit the aircraft and swim, he made a full recovery. There has been no other injury in any other water landing under CAPS including this one.
IMHO there is absolutely no reason not to pull in these circumstances as the video of the landing clearly demonstrates. Why risk it?
As for landing on water causing back injury, there is one case of a pilot who pulled over water at low level who did hurt his back but was still able to exit the aircraft and swim, he made a full recovery. There has been no other injury in any other water landing under CAPS including this one.
Last edited by Jonzarno; 29th Jan 2015 at 10:34. Reason: To comment on potential for back injury.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be very scared of catching a wingtip in one of those swells and cartwheeling in at 60 KTS.
IMHO there is absolutely no reason not to pull in these circumstances as the video of the landing clearly demonstrates. Why risk it?
IMHO there is absolutely no reason not to pull in these circumstances as the video of the landing clearly demonstrates. Why risk it?
If I were regularly crossing very large expanses of rough ocean, or totally unlandable terrain in a single engined wheel plane, I would probably share this view. The success of the parachute use in this event is obvious
Certainly, a safety feature is just that, and a good thing, if you feel it is cost effective, and use it correctly. A sound combination of safety equipment, and the training to fly safely in general, and use the safety equipment you have appropriately is ideal, and an airframe parachute may be a part of that. But, equal safety can be achieved without it too, if other factors affecting a safe return to earth are well managed.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Though I have no particular knowledge of this event, ferry fuel systems in general can be difficult, and this is not the first time an aircraft has taken unuseable ferry fuel into a ditching. When I have ferried with extra tanks, I have been aware of the critcality of vents working as intended, because for a gravity feed tank, if the vent air cannot get it, the fuel won't get out. Lots of attention is paid to the supply line, but vent lines are an afterthought.
My first time ever flying a Twin Otter was an hour on my own in right seat shortly after takeoff, while my captain was in the back disassembling the venting system to clear a vent line, so we could use that fuel. He did succeed, others have not. Had he not, we would have had an overgross landing, though likely on a runway, as opposed to the ocean.
For that reason, I'm a real fan of TurtlePac bladder tanks, as venting is not required. The problem is that old guidance material still seems to favour rigid tanks, so that's what are often used, and venting becomes a critical consideration.
My first time ever flying a Twin Otter was an hour on my own in right seat shortly after takeoff, while my captain was in the back disassembling the venting system to clear a vent line, so we could use that fuel. He did succeed, others have not. Had he not, we would have had an overgross landing, though likely on a runway, as opposed to the ocean.
For that reason, I'm a real fan of TurtlePac bladder tanks, as venting is not required. The problem is that old guidance material still seems to favour rigid tanks, so that's what are often used, and venting becomes a critical consideration.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a real shame that the fuel system on the aircraft wasn't as reliable as the recovery system was..................
Step Turn: you posted as I was typing this: very interesting post!
Last edited by Jonzarno; 29th Jan 2015 at 13:20. Reason: Add last comment
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I read the reports correctly, at least one of the occupants of the Cessna was carried out of the SAR helo on a stretcher. Quite a different being "fine" than what has been reported of the chutist.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Age: 47
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If he had time for a video selfie! Where is the video of the alleged failed fuel valve? Pilot on Plane Escape: A Lot of Things Could Have Gone Wrong Video - ABC News Professional Ferry Pilots Want to Know as well as the FAA and NTSB!
Last edited by NW_Pilot; 30th Jan 2015 at 00:32.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity so it's actually more like nine times the energy (ca 17 KTS under the chute vs ca 50 KTS for the ditching)
As I understand it the actual conditions were winds of 28 knots and seas of 6-8 feet: not easy to judge a ditching.
A couple more points on the dynamics of this incident:
That 28 knot wind is most probably in the same direction as the waves are moving so, if you land into the wind you are likely to impact the face of a 6 - 8 ft wave that is being blown towards you.
If you try to land parallel to the waves, you exceed the demonstrated crosswind performance of the plane (20 KTS)
In addition, there are also mostly full ferry tanks in the plane (the cause of the problem was that the fuel couldn't get from the ferry tanks to the engine) and there is a risk that they might shift forward in a horizontal impact.
As I understand it the actual conditions were winds of 28 knots and seas of 6-8 feet: not easy to judge a ditching.
A couple more points on the dynamics of this incident:
That 28 knot wind is most probably in the same direction as the waves are moving so, if you land into the wind you are likely to impact the face of a 6 - 8 ft wave that is being blown towards you.
If you try to land parallel to the waves, you exceed the demonstrated crosswind performance of the plane (20 KTS)
In addition, there are also mostly full ferry tanks in the plane (the cause of the problem was that the fuel couldn't get from the ferry tanks to the engine) and there is a risk that they might shift forward in a horizontal impact.
Your maths is not correct (( to be correct you would have to assume that liquid acts in the same way as air so a 25kt pocket of air would blend with and match a 25 kt pocket of water also moving at 25 its which is not the case.
Yes I too am committed to the idea of the chute but question it as being a answer to all ills.
I think this guy was very lucky that the air craft became horizontal under the chute before impacting the water as a large portion of the decent was nose first with a high descent rate and had the aircraft not taken up its designed profile the pilot may well have regretted his decision to pull or not been in a position to regret anything ((
Pace
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
The CAPS system worked pretty much as designed although the initial extraction actually appears to have been a bit slower than it should have been.
Analysis of the coastguard video has indicated that the deployment was at about 5500 feet and that the aircraft was level under the chute having lost just over 400 ft. That is normal.
The initial nose down attitude is deliberate so that the initial deceleration is taken by the seat belts. Once that has happened the explosive line cutters fire on the rear risers allowing the aircraft to assume the horizontal attitude.
This was a normal successful deployment.
As regards my maths, I didn't say the waves were moving at any particular speed, just that they are likely to be moving in a similar direction to the wind and thus, if you try to ditch into the wind, you are likely to be moving roughly into the face of the waves rather than parallel to them.
The CAPS system worked pretty much as designed although the initial extraction actually appears to have been a bit slower than it should have been.
Analysis of the coastguard video has indicated that the deployment was at about 5500 feet and that the aircraft was level under the chute having lost just over 400 ft. That is normal.
The initial nose down attitude is deliberate so that the initial deceleration is taken by the seat belts. Once that has happened the explosive line cutters fire on the rear risers allowing the aircraft to assume the horizontal attitude.
This was a normal successful deployment.
As regards my maths, I didn't say the waves were moving at any particular speed, just that they are likely to be moving in a similar direction to the wind and thus, if you try to ditch into the wind, you are likely to be moving roughly into the face of the waves rather than parallel to them.
The initial nose down attitude is deliberate so that the initial deceleration is taken by the seat belts.
The POH says the aircraft should level around 8 seconds after chute deployment, and the video suggests it worked as advertised.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no doubt ditching in any conditions is going to be a high risk situation, I think the Pilot here did have to a degree a lucky outcome considering the wind and wave's.
Had a the plane been engulfed by a wave or a wing dug in sooner it could have been a whole different ugly outcome.
The big learning point for me from this would be to be getting out of that plane top priority and being fully prepared for that and any passengers properly briefed.
It was pretty shocking how quickly it went down.
Had a the plane been engulfed by a wave or a wing dug in sooner it could have been a whole different ugly outcome.
The big learning point for me from this would be to be getting out of that plane top priority and being fully prepared for that and any passengers properly briefed.
It was pretty shocking how quickly it went down.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The POH says the aircraft should level around 8 seconds after chute deployment, and the video suggests it worked as advertised
Several factors, this was a new G5 that has a bigger chute due to extra payload, also not sure if C&G effected anything with extra ferry tanks, also looked as if plane was slowed down quite substantially that may effect the energy to inflate the chute.
While a great outcome I would Guess Cirrus / BRS will want to understand why not fully level sooner.
On the massive plus side No person has died when the CAPS system deployed above 1000 feet above ground and below Vne airspeed of 200 knots indicated.