Cirrus SR20 deploys ballistic parachute near Banbury
 

If this is already in another thread, I couldn't find it....

The AAIB bulleting for 7/2011 reports on this N reg Cirrus, flown by a low-time pilot with no instrument qualifications, returning on a days excursion from Ireland to Turweston. Running into poor weather near Shenington Gliding Club, which had stood down flying to let the shower pass, the Cirrus pilot lost control trying to turn back to Turweston, found himself in an extreme nose down attitude, and pulled the chute. Which saved the life of himself and his passenger. But damaged the Cirrus SR20 beyond economic repair.

Any comments? the report makes interesting reading.

He was lucky that 'chute deployed at 52 kts above max demonstrated deployment speed. I wonder what would have happened had he not been flying a cirrus? It almost sounds as if he was always going to rely on the BRS over all else when the report says he didn't know what some of the AP settings were for but made sure he knew how the BRS worked.

That brings into question the arguement of whether having a chute doesnt encourage Cirrus pilots to fly in conditions they wouldnt contemplate if there was no chute? Ie in bad weather and at night,over inhospitable terrain or even if the pilot is stressed or under the weather?

Personally I feel the aircraft is better with a chute! This has to be the way forward with better and better designs which work at higher and higher speeds.

Single pilot with PAX who are powerless if anything goes wrong? At least the PAX have an option.

The pilot has more options if all goes badly pear shaped but with more options come more choices as in light twin flying and more options to take the wrong decision even if that decision is whether to go flying at all!

Pace

Link here ;

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...RD%2007-11.pdf


Coldair

My PERSONAL view:
BRS: Great idea, can't see any reason not to fit it to new aircraft (cost aside).

Plus Points :ok:: Provides last chance in the case of major structural/control problems, engine failure with nowhere landable close, pilot incapacitation

Minus Points :{: Encourages pilots to push on without the necessary skill/experience.

Controversial point :*: Pilots losing control in IMC and relying on BRS to "save the day" (as opposed to having the necessary skill/training) should be viewed as grossly irresponsible (for getting into the situation where they needed the BRS) and required to undergo (extensive) re-training. The insurance company should also "take an appropriate view on culpability of the pilot and adjust payout accordingly".

OC619

When I looked at a Cirrus I was told by the salesman that it was an AP flown a/c. In other words the AP was the primary method of control apart from take off and landing.

If this is indeed the case then one has to wonder what sort of checkout this hapless soul received?

SGC

If this is indeed the case then one has to wonder why it was ever given a Certificate of Airworthiness!

The Cirrus has quite a lively roll rate more akin to an aerobatic machine hence flown in IMC it would take quite a sharp IR pilot to hand fly it.

I believe that has been improved on the latest machines.

Autopilots notoriously go wrong so it would be irresponsable to totally rely on the autopilot not just in a Cirrus but in any aircraft.

At the end of the day the pilot has to be up to the task of flying the aircaft raw and dealing with all the other tasks expected of a single pilot in IMC!

Pace

'wot Pace sed.

I did a lot of touring around the British Isles before I had any kind of instrument qualification. I quite routinely changed plan and diverted. It was just part of "the game" of flying VFR in British weather. Doubtless as an IMC rated pilot, I'll still do the same in the future, instrument training isn't the solution to all ills.



I also recall my PPL and subsequent licences teaching me how to recover from unusual attitudes.

I also recall many briefings over the years along the lines of "aviate, navigate, communicate" and messages about not losing control of the aeroplane in the hurry to communicate.

It also appears likely that there was adequate warning both visually and from the forecast of weather deteriorating below VMC.

So, it does appear that there were four bvious points to break the accident chain here, none of which were taken.

A few of other thoughts:

- Pulling the chute at 3,000ft immediately was a very early disregard of other means of recovery.
- 120 kts is hardly fast for a cirrus, so does not in itself imply a large pitching departure. 25deg nose-down and 66deg bank is a pretty average PPL training spiral dive.
- The AAIB inspector who wrote that report was clearly enjoying having so much data to play with.
- All of this reads as a pilot whose stress levels were escalating, spare capacity going down, and had failed to recognise and deal with these factors.

G

Why does the report state that the SR20 is only approved for flight under Vfr conditions ? With AP garmin 430 etc why cant this fly IFR in IMC outside of controlled airspace or am I missing something ?

I agree, echobeach, I also found that statement perplexing.

Why spend all that money on all those fancy avionics and electronic displays if the aircraft is only certificated for flight in VMC? Looking at the Cirrus SRV technical specifications, the limitations seems to be that the 'PFD' is certified for flight in VMC only.

Seems frankly bizarre to me for an aeroplane spending much of its time in UK weather :uhoh:. As does a standard gyroscopic turn co-ordinator, mounted behind the instrument panel, which is not visible to the pilot during flight.

This is one of the most atrociously embarrassing accident reports I have ever read, and I have read many... if I was the pilot I would be grateful for not having my name on it.

I am not against a BRS chute and it is a great safety feature which would facilitate SE flight over areas where one might not want to go otherwise (mountains, forests) and it is a lot cheaper than having a second engine, but the vast majority of Cirrus chute pulls were the outcome of pilot stupidity / very poor training, and this is just one more of the same.

His atrocious instructor(s) - especially the one who signed him off - are no doubt equally grateful for remaining anonymous, but they would have nothing to fear under the UK system where there is never any comeback on an instructor.

To be fair however, in the UK PPL system you could get your differences training signed off for the Apollo Lunar Module without demonstrating competence on anything more than how to flip the main engine CBs... it is a long-obsolete system which is steeped in history and which has got totally left behind GA avionics development for about 20 years. It carries on largely because few instructors know even how to load a route into a Garmin 430 so there is no interest in the training apparatus in doing anything about it. When I bought my TB20 in 2002, I never found an instructor who knew how the HSI worked. Even the current JAA IR theory is full of old 1970s B737 crap.

There is a Cirrus training course which is insurer-mandated in the USA but I don't know what happens over here.

The statement
is indeed bizzare and shows how little GA expertise there is in the AAIB today. It may be technically true on the particular aircraft due to some avionics being missing but then the AAIB report should have amplified such a statement, because I am sure no VFR-only SR20 has ever been sold on G-reg or N-reg. I also think such an aircraft would have been illegal to fly due to required equipment being INOP.

I do know that ~ 25 years ago Socata were flying TB aircraft with no gyro instruments, on the ferry flight from France to Biggin Hill only, but they were never sold like that because they were unairworthy IAW the POH.

It was probably VFR only due to the lack of an ADF.

This will go down as a save for BRS but the guy would not have been there if the BRS had not been fitted.

Rod1

Rod

I think the latest Cirrus are even fitted with an emergency auto recovery button which levels the aircraft if you loose it :ugh:
All the Gizmos are great but it makes for lazy pilots.
Most of the jets I fly are the old steam driven variety from the 70s and early 80s. I call them good for the soul aircraft.
Even with jets we take every opportunity on positioning flights with no PAX and below RVSM airspace to hand fly the whole route.
Its what I call a good for the soul exercise.
I have had a number of autopilot failures. One into Berlin with no FD meant hand flying to 200 foot O/C and 700 metre vis.
Again good for the soul!
All these systems are great but not if the pilot becomes some sort of point and go guy who sits there as a semi passeneger.
I am hardly an expert on Cirrus although I do like the aircraft and did time the roll rate 45 deg to 45 deg some time back. It was very close to a Firefly so quite nifty! I remember thinking it would be hard work flying for prolonged periods in cloud raw.
Ok for a competant pilot but not for a point and go guy! Its a Cirrus not a Mooney ;)

Pace

Embarrassed maybe............but alive. It is o.k. to say that he shouldn't have got himself into this mess but he did and had the common sense to recognise that he was out of his depth. That's one of the reasons you have a BRS fitted.

Might be interesting to see what quotes he gets for insurance on his next aircraft however.

I believe the SRV is VFR only out of the factory. The whole point of the aircraft was to sell it to flying schools that didn't want anything too fancy so that it could better compete with the C172 etc in the trainer market. It doesn't have the full IFR suite that the regular SR20/22 has.

It sounds from the report like he may have entered IMC briefly...I mean how else would he have ended up 25 degrees done and 66 degrees in roll? Unless he was so busy fiddling with the autopilot he didn't notice. Once having got into that situation rather than use the unusual attitude experience from his PPL training to recover he apparently panicked and through away a perfectly good aircraft.

I don't however belief that he wouldn't have been there without the chute...loads of pilots without chutes have tried continued VFR into IMC before and killed themselves in the process, people can just be that stupid. At least this guy appears to have tried to get out of it even if his skills were found somewhat wanting.

You are quite right, CT. The SRV is sold as VFR only. I eat my words.

How bizzare.

An autopilot is the best pilot workload reducer by far and while I have had a number of failures I would not embark on a long single pilot flight without it working.

A Cirrus is obviously flyable by hand, and I have flown one, but I think most "stick" tourers are routinely flown on the AP because the stick doesn't lend itself to quite such precise control as a yoke.

The bottom line in this one has to be pilot training. Not the weather as such because a PPL has to be able to fly in IMC, and do at least a 180.

VFR only
 

My best guess is page 21 "Aircraft information" of the report - it doesn't have backup Attitude Indicator. I would consider that a major issue for IFR approval anywhere. Can't remember a single Cirrus without it, this must be something special (or old?).

I had a look at the Cirrus website this morning and was somewhat surpised at the complicated glass screens and the number of knobs and tits with which the cockpit of this VFR-only aeroplane is encumbered. All that eye-candy in a VFR-only environment which is supposed to be 'see and avoid'??

Good HMI means elegant simplicity, not overcomplicated displays with awkward input devices, layers of menus and sub-menus. The very last thing you need in a single pilot VMC aeroplane.

I always remember my 'car test' rules of thumb - how easy is it to:

1. Reset the clock and
2. Change the radio station.......

I never did find out how to change the station on a hire car I once had in Germany - after 10 minutes of beeps and admonishment from the display, I gave up. A Mercedes I once used, whilst mine was being serviced, had a clock which showed the wrong time. It took me 10 minutes of faffing to find out how to reset it!

The V is SRV stands for VFR. Basically the story is that Cirrus realised that while they had a great aircraft in the SR20/22 they were never going to compete with the C172 etc in the flight school market because they were just too expensive and flying schools were not interesting in paying more for aircraft that just flew a lot faster than its competitors.

So rather than come up with a new model they ripped out all the stuff that made it IFR, ie the Garmin 430 etc and sold it for $40,000 less or something like that. Doesn't make much sense to me though since while PPL training is done VFR I would have thought that most flying schools would have wanted the option to do instrument flight instruction as well.

In general I find the older Avidyne systems (which I'm assuming this had) quite simple to use, unlike the G1000 which if you don't know what you are doing can get you in a pickle quite quickly.

I did something very similar in a PA38 during basic PPL training, on my first solo away from the circuit. I'd flown for about an hour with my instructor in the local area, dodging (& sometimes flying through) the clouds. I told my instructor on landing that I was really looking forward to being able to take the aircraft away from the circuit on my own, and to my surprise he checked the bookings sheet & handed me the keys back with a 'don't be away more than 40 mins... and KEEP OUT OF THE CLOUDS!!!'. What I really wanted to do was fly over my house, which was about 10nm from the airfield but in the opposite direction to the local training area. So once out of sight of the tower, I did a quick course reversal & headed off east. Of course, the cloud cover was much less broken that way.... ....and to cut a long story short, flew straight into one. I just focused on the panel, turned through 180 & was out in a couple of minutes - about the same time as the radio boomed out 'G-xxxx return IMMEDIATELY'. Managed to find my way back around the weather & on landing both myself & the instructor who'd authorised the flight had the pleasure of a long & most uncomfortable 'no tea & no biscuits' session with the CFI, who'd apparently been taking advantage of the weather to conduct IMC training & was horrified to learn that one of the students was out in those conditions solo.

My point in posting this story is this. I survived this very silly misadventure because I'd just done the same thing with an instructor, in the same aircraft, in the same weather, an hour before. Currency & confidence prevented a nasty incident, despite my best efforts to cause one.

Everyone presumably still has to demonstrate some basic ability to fly on instruments in order to get a licence. In theory, any PPL holder should be able to fly themselves out of a cloud in a situation like this. But if a pilot hasn't done it recently in the type they're flying, and their last 50 hours has been spent flying VFR with the autopilot engaged, then it's understandable that they'll frighten themselves badly, panic, and pull the 'chute. IMO every VFR-only pilot would benefit from flying any aircraft they fly regularly in actual IMC with a suitably qualified instructor. But how are folks going to be able to get this potentially life-saving experience if they're flying a VFR-only type?

Idiots, you and the instructor.

Thank you for making your contribution to a hostile discussion environment where people will keep their mistakes to themselves and therefore forcing everyone to learn from their own mistakes instead of other's.

I disagree with that. After hand flying the DA40 and DA42 on some really long cross countries (600 miles+) I'd opt for a stick every time as it gives you far more precise control while comfortably resting your hand in your lap. It is also far more intuitive than a yoke which must have been invented to make planes like cars. I agree AP is great, but they do go tits up from time to time.

By the way there have been many numpties killed by IMC in PA28's (for example) so I think the parachute is a red herring and obviously saved the day in this case. You'll always get morons flying outside their experience levels in every type of aeroplane. Probably a Cirrus moron has more money than a PA38 Moron though.

Do I really need to point out the utter stupidity of what this guy did?

Opposite direction to training area? As a student? into IMC? with no instrument experience (apart from an instructor flying through a cloud)? Near London TMA one assumes? for at least 4 minutes? presumably unaware of Notams, CAS, danger areas, restricted areas etc etc etc?

It just beggars belief what some people do, really. Its one thing to post on here saying I made a mistake and have learnt from it but the above just floored me. I can't really believe that anyone is going to try to defend this as "woops, I made a mistake" - its just downright stupidity, nothing more to be said.

How can the parachute be a red herring when the outcome would so obviously have been completely different without it? Either the pilot would have got it together, recovered the aircraft & flown back to VMC, or he'd have lost control completely, crashed & likely lost his life.

I would still consider the Avidyne PFD to be good enough to fly in IMC - all the "6 pack" information is on the PFD. I think any PPL is able (should be) to do 180 in IMC, the problem in this case, IMHO, is that the pilot didn't noticed the attitude (nose way down, high bank and speed sounds like spiral entry to me) while looking at MFD and obviously wasn't able to recover on instruments (didn't have any training). I guess in this situation opening the parachute wasn't such a bad option.

On the speed the parachute has got opened - the Cirrus has demonstrated speed no maximum speed for deployment.

Psychologically, if the parachute encourages the pilots to be more reckless or not I don't know, I know that until I get my IR I'm maintaining 1.5km/1000 feet from them clouds :)

I may or may not agree with you but that's not the point. The point is, where do you draw the line? Many "mistakes" are "stupid" in some way or the other, and in hindsight could have been avoided. If you make personal insults to people sharing experiences like this, it will make *everyone* more secretive, and that will be detrimental to flight safety.

Maybe the above example will cause a student reading it to abort a flight, recognizing it has similarities to the story shared?

Very sorry for the thread hijack.

VMC on top
 

Clearly not, but you did anyway.

If you read through the “saves” for the cirrus BRS and then look at accidents for other similar touring aircraft it is hard to escape the fact that there are lower time less qualified pilots getting out of their depth and puling the BRS in much grater numbers than accidents in non BRS aircraft. The weather might be a bit much but I have a BRS so it will be all right and the forecast is always pessimistic, is an approach that you are unlikely to take if you have no BRS. I am not saying BRS is all bad, but it does appear to encourage more risk taking because there is a fall back.

Rod1

Another interpretation might be that pilots in similar situations in non-BRS aircraft take just as many risks but usually manage to recover from their misdemeanors, so there is no incident to report.

I'm still interested in the BRS. It has a max demonstrated speed for operation yet that speed isn't particularly high. As can be seen from this report the BRS was operated way above that demonstrated speed, and the pilot was lucky it worked when the report also states that there have been recorded cases where the BRS hasn't worked above the max demonstrated speed.

Given an unusual attitude and faced with an increasing airspeed, isn't it possible that a pilot may decide to pull the chute before exhausting all other options just because they were aware of the possibility of the chute not working beyond a particular airspeed?

The pilot said there was a jolt and he noticed increasing airspeed. It's really not too surprising that he automatically assumed the worst and didn't want to wait around to confirm his suspicion.

A last resort isn't exactly a last resort if there is a particularly limiting operational factor. What do you guys think?

So would I, but I think IO was referring the the side stick, which is I think only found in Cirrus and the Corvalis (in aircraft of that particular market sector). I find flying our PA 28 - 180 quite tiring long distance as holding the yoke in the left hand with the grip needed results what for me is an odd angle and an aching shoulder! So yes, a conventional stick is far more comfortable.

Rasti121
 

You are quite correct about the Avidyne being good enough for IMC flight and with the correct equipment fit it is, in this case the aircraft was not fitted with the standby instruments that are required for IFR flight. So the aircraft becomes VFR only because of no back up attitude indication if the Avidyne fails.

Yes; I meant the side stick.

This "Cirrus business" has been done to death on every pilot forum going, UK, USA, the lot. There are a number of factors which are not going away:

Cirrus advertising, in the USA anyway, has been aimed to draw in new blood. They correctly realised that flogging a new idea (actually an SR20/22 is hardly innovative when you look at what is actually in there, and what bodge was done to get rid of the prop rpm lever, but I am talking about perceptions here) to the ultra conservative population of ageing GA pilots was a dead horse. So they aimed it at younger affluent people who, given the cost of this hardware, are nearly all business / professional high achievers.

This in turn has created a number of issues.

Those who fly regularly IFR know that a plane will never be a car. The only plane which approaches the despatch rate of even a Trabant will be a heavily de-iced turboprop or above. But the Cirrus dealer is not going to tell you that, and neither will the PPL instructor. Even with an IR, full TKS, a turbo, oxygen, and currency you are only going to be around the 90-95% mark. Without full TKS, around 75% unless you like the odd "eventuful flight" and your passengers are very devoted to you :) But if you advertise a plane like it is a 150kt car (and the current Cessna 400 adverts in the US mags, where the very smart businessman with great hair is visiting 3 cities in one day, do the same thing, if far less successfully than Cirrus have done) then statistically you are bound to draw out of the woodwork some people who believe it, and some of them are statistically bound to fall through the cracks in the PPL training system and actually try it. Hence you would expect more "stupid" crashes in Cirruses than the older types, but I can't see anybody should be blamed for this. GA cannot carry on running on WW2 hardware. It desperately needs new blood (and women ;) ).

A large % of business / professional people are not easy to train to fly. At best, they are successful in their jobs and they are equally demanding of all service providers including their PPL instructors, and we all know that a % of instructors are technically useless and/or useless communicators. This causes a relationship breakdown, in such cases. If you want to teach professionals to fly, you need to be very competent yourself and your whole training business has to be very polished. Money is not an issue, after all.

A % of business / professional people are aggressive and arrogant. These are just going to be hard to train anyway.

Looking at the Cirrus chute pulls, most of them were in basically dumb circumstances, and it's probably due to a combination of the above factors. But even those vary. The one where they stalled/spun while probing the operating ceiling, in turbulence and icing or whatever, that has killed loads of normal pilots, and I would not call that a "Cirrus factor". The one where he pulled the chute because his aileron fell off was plain dumb because AFAIK the plane was fully flyable.

The chute pulls have reflected in high insurance premiums. I know one UK insurer has whacked up the deductible from £3500 to £15000, following one well publicised UK chute pull a year ago. And US Cirrus owners now pay something like 2x more than TB20 owners, despite the "low insurance rate" (haha) fixed gear which costs them about 10-15% extra avgas on every flight. Whatever you think of this trend, it is going to kill the sales, and the only way out is mandatory and thorough pilot training, but this is tricky to implement because it is way on top of ICAO requirements.

Then you have loads of traditional pilots who don't believe a proper pilot should be provided with a get out of jail card, and upon making a mistake he should die like a man, while saluting the queen of course. So a lot of Cirrus crashes get taken apart... but all the time you have people pulling the chute for daft reasons the "GA lynch mob" will carry on :)

IO I think we are saying the same thing, so what is the solution? Mandatory training with a formal test on the aircraft systems? Alternatively I suppose the insurance co’s will “solve” the problem by making insurance unobtainable or too expensive to seriously consider.

Rod1

The insurance for reasons of the chute system doesnt make sense. What is the bigger insurance claim loss of an airframe or 4 lives with either loss of life or serious injury?

On the sidestick issue the problem is not the sidestick but the roll rate which means that any less than competant pilot in cloud could with slight distraction quickly end up in a high angle of bank.

Cirrus have fitted an emergency auto leveler button so they must themselves appreciate that the aircraft is lively in roll.

There is nothing especially wrong with the aircraft but equally it is not the easiest IFR platform hand flown.

Rely on systems and you are in for a big shock when they fail.

In the hands of a competant pilot the Cirrus is a fast safe aeroplane but here lies the problem as often a Cirrus gets into the hands of wealthy low time pilots or not so competant pilots who because of the percieved safety additions will fly the aircraft in conditions they are not up to!

Pace

They could do to Cirrus what they have done to Piper (at least in UK, maybe all JAA/EASA states?) and take it out of the SEP(L) class and make pilots get a type rating, like you have to do for the PA46. They could also designate it as a "high performance aircraft", this of course would make them unpopular with the manufacturer and current owners.

My :02 cents

I am disappointed by the wiff of "real pilots should not need to be saved by a parachute" in some of the posts on this forum. Sadly the accident record says otherwise and IMO anything that can reduce the headlines gleefully reporting yet another "smoking hole with dead bodies" is obviously good for not only the people saved but for the industry as a whole.

The sad fact is every fatal accident is another one of a death by a thousand cuts that will cause more airports that operate "dangerous" small aircraft to close and more pressure to regulate GA out of existance. This is not just a UK issue, it applies to pretty much everywhere there is still privately operated small aircraft.

This accident has "training failure" written all over it. One huge issue which IMO is not getting sufficent heat and light is the fact that the type conversion training has to to have 2 parts. The first part is the fly it up, fly it down basic aircraft control which usually happens, what is missing is the second part, Practical knowledge and strategies for using the technology.

The turn off the electrics and use a map and stop watch brigade have to get their heads out of the sand and get with the program, because properly used the technology makes flying easier, more precise, and safer.

So for example if you are A VFR only pilot in a technoloically advanced aircraft and inadvertantly get into cloud the first thing you should do is turn on the autopilot in heading and alt hold mode. The aircraft will fly straight and level (straight because you have been taught to always set the heading bug on to your current course) while you asses the situation and then initiate a turn towards the nearest VMC. This would obviously be the last part of a trained response that wouldl start with the pilot decision making to not get into IMC in the first place.

I'm no EASA expert on FCL etc but doesn't the word 'complex' figure? And if so would a Cirrus be a prime candidate?

SGC