Pace actually I recall the average GA number may be lower (ie better) but comparing TAA aircraft the Cirrus average is comparable to similar types.

I do not have any idea of the actual numbers of successful forced landings v fatal forced landings but I do know in forced landings a % make a fatal mistake, maybe this is 5% maybe it is 20% that die, and I guess it depends on a load of factors including type, experience, weather, luck etc.

For me the added factor that makes my SOP is that the Cirrus for example is far worse to contemplate an off airfield landing due to its higher stall speed and therefore landing speed plus the small wheels do not make the prospect very good compared to say a C172 or C182, PA28, Robin etc I think you would have a better chance of survival and putting it in a reasonable field in these types.

So for me I do not want to get to 300 ft and think I have cocked it up with a perfectly good chute stowed away.

If I carry passengers I remind myself even more to not get tempted into a forced landing if the need arises and I hope in the heat of the moment I remember what I preach in good time.

007

But with the chute you have another option another decision to make?
Take off !!! climbing out 300 feet the engine goes bang. Push the nose over looking for a landing site ahead. Do I pull the chute do I force land ? decisions, decisions, decisions! Remember that is the most likely height and condition to get an engine failure.
Stall speed is irrelevant! Do not stall.Quite simple really!Taking out a hedge will not kill you! Avoiding a brick building or tree no sweat if you have control of the aircraft :E

As an addendum Cirrus are the first major constructor to offer the BRS for a 4 seater single piston! Probably why it generates so much discussion.
What other manufacturers are following? It always struck me that the Columbia which is a superior aircraft along the lines of the Cirrus do not yet have a chute system. I am sure their relatively low sales would soar if they did!
Pace

Pace I am worried, I am not sure if you are reading my posts !!

300ft EFATO would be a bad time to pull the chute, better see what options are straight ahead and fly it to the ground IMHO and SOP.

I agree, why on earth do not more manufacturers fit the BRS Chute, I assume cost to modify the airframe?

Cirrus had the advantage of designing from scratch but no mean feat to design an aircraft, bring it to market and sell 1000's, kudos to Alan and Dale Klapmeir who I have had the privilege of meeting, in my opinion they did to GA what Steve Jobs did to phones.

Columbia looks a decent aircraft but sold low 100's where Cirrus sold medium 1000's, you think if they had fitted a BRS and bought it in at a similar price then there could be some healthy competition for Cirrus, in my mind there is Zero serious competition for Cirrus at present.

Because its a waste of fuel with correctly trained pilots.

And also its a huge weight penalty for traffic load.

I wouldn't pay for it for either the fuel or the reduced traffic load.

If some talent limited pilots think its worth it crack on and fly with it but don't subject the rest of us to paying for that crap.

My personal risk assement for me is it doesn't reduce my risk to be worth it. In fact a bottle of diet coke on board would increase my flight safety more than a chute.

Now then MJ, how would those comments pan out over the Alps, or maybe more appropriately the Grampians, or Cairngorms?

BB

Well I think what 007 meant was that with a higher stall speed you will come in faster to a field during a forced landing and therefore be more likely to hit something...a C182 with full flap will stop in a less than 200 meters on rough grass and one can maintain control down to ~45kts with full flap just before landing. In a Cirrus in the same forced landing scenario one would be steaming in still at 60kts+ which makes a big difference to how small a space one can fit into.

Depends on the mission profile surely?

If you do mainly day VMC flying over flat terrain then yes the chute is not going to reduce the risk that much but compare two single engine aircraft with the same pilot but now doing regular night flying and/or low ceilings IFR over bad terrain and I think the chute significantly reduces the risk of death.

No the bottle of diet coke will win every time.

If the risk factor gets that high I won't be doing it in a SEP.

I used to fly reguarly over the Cairngorms IFR in a single and in the winds which we up north consider normal but some would consider excessive.

Diet coke or a twin please.

Alps I don't fly over in my 2000shp 7 ton or 3300 shp 10 ton tp because its not safe due drift down.

Cairngorms you are going to get killed on the landing if you like it or not chute or no chute. Which is why personally I would go for a ditching if possible.

But yet again I would hope I am resonably comfy in cloud not likely to **** myself when I hear the cloud base is at 700 ft and can actually fly a manual aircraft in trim and a straight line.

Where would you ditch over the Cairngorms?

How can you be so sure you would die with a chute?

BB

Because I have walked the cairngorms since I was 5 and flown over them for the last 12 years. Doesn'tt matter what the let down is your in the hands of god if you can't see where your going. It can be straight into a cliff, straight into a boulder or a soft splodge into a lump of peat.

Tons of Lochs to ditch into around the edges. But in the Cairgorm massive your pretty well stuffed.

http://www.jbutler.org.uk/Scotland/C...cairngorms.gif
http://www.jbutler.org.uk/images/Cairngorms/94411.jpg

Contact I believe most forced landing fatalities occur through pilots stalling in not through controlled flight and hitting something.
In that sense stall speed is irrelevant ie DO NOT STALL. There is no excuse witrh a properly trained pilot to stall.
Even if you land faster with a higher stall speed it is very unlikely you will kill yourself taking out a hedge or two ;) Ask me as I have had one self induced landing into a field 25 years ago.
Just through interest does anyone have the forced landing fatality figures which do not include stall/spins.
I remember seeing them somehwere and am sure the fatality in controlled forced landings was very very low. Stalling another matter but thats bad piloting

Pace

Around 85 lbs is not exactly a "huge weight penalty"

WTF is the bottle of coke thing?

What a load of garbage, some forced landings would survive and plenty of Chute pulls would have a very good chance of survival as they have done in other mountain areas.

Sure there is a much higher risk of failure than flat lands.

Ditching in a Loch, MJ what would you rate your % chances of survival of you and you passengers in that situation?

Agreed

If you really don't want to die take more exercise and eat less ice cream.

MJ - surely you are kidding, that is bread and butter in a Husky, I've landed in far less appealing scenery than that picture.

Survival chances a damn sight better than landing on a scree slope or any of the granite flats with there layered rock strata.

And in there in general isn't much wave action in scottish lochs and the wind tends to be channeled along them so into wind you would have next to nothing ground speed and if you could drop it next to the shore and keep your phone dry it would be better than rock landing. Also stalling it into the pine trees is also discussed extensively as another method.

The water temp would be a significant factor but then anywhere in the scottish mountains the crash is only the first thing to survive.

And actually I have never taken pax across the cairngorms unless in a twin. I have taken other pilots who know the risks but not some clueless punter. Same with water crossings to the islands.

But in general in the highlands its not the locals who crash and its not engine failures and the like its usually pilot error and CFIT in IMC.

Which is what this comes down to the chute lets you survive a pilot error which is far the most likely thing to cause an accident. The most likely time for that is on approach and landing.

And if you had actually walked the hills and flown over them you would know where I was coming from with the likely outcome of a forced landing in them. Those of us that do fly them have our points dotted about that we think we could get in, the rest of it you have to accept your dead unless luck gives you a joker. If your not will to accept that you shouldn't be flying in the area.

We actually have quite a good safety record up north, there is alot more GA flying than you might think. Very active microlight communities and loads of gliding and spam cans as well. I would like to think that the safety record is more to do with the average standard of pilot and there ability to say sod it when the risk factor gets to high. If there was a industry wide beasting of pilot standards and PIC standards it would reap far more improvement in fatalitys than sticking 85lbs of dead mass in the aircraft.

All the chute does is treat the symptom it doesn't cure the desease.

And the two ltr bottle of diet coke can be used to either replace fluids or remove them thus either stopping dehydration or removing the distraction of bursting for a pee on approach/landing which is where most accidents happen.

you would think so but the pic doesn;t show what the normal relief is. Its either strata granite which has weathured cracks which then rut and you have steps every 2 meters or so. There is also loads of mostly scandanavian grantie lumps which have been dropped out when the ice melted. Then you get the peat areas which again have muliple steps and for ever changing water runs so even the bottom of the U shapes arn't that good.

Unless you have actually walked them it looks pretty decent from the air but lower down its pretty bloody horrible to be honest unless your in a helicopter and they don't land very often and winch instead.

Yes Pilot error is the biggest cause of fatalities, we can agree on that.

Agreed, Approach and landing has also a high risk area where Pilot error accounts for a lot of mistakes but this is an area the chute is least effective, due to low or no altitude.

I am all for more training personally but the declining industry can not stand higher training costs or more regulation, accidents will continue to happen at roughly the same per 100, 000 hours chute or not.

The thing is that most of the training thats really required isn't in the air. Its more attitude (of the mind) training and PIC skills training.

Now to be honest most of the posters that are very pro the chute on here are the pilots that least need it.

You think about what you are doing, you plan your flights and you hopefully don't let the aircraft go anywhere that you mind hasn't been before 10 mins ago. You also engage other pilots in discussion. You also read accident reports and look at the statistics of where the danger areas are. And realise your not that current and you have limitations. Appart from the fact your license says PPL on it you are thinking and flying like a pro pilot.

The CAA safety meetings in the UK do start down this road but again the pilots that go to them arn't the ones that need it in general.

And as much as myself and a few others argue with your point of view, I for one have alot of respect for your point of view even if I might not agree with the premise of the chute as a get out of jail free card for incompetence.

And just to note for me an extra 55ltrs of fuel onboard gives me way way more options that I will use nearly every trip that a handle wouldn't.

MJ

PPLs are a mixed bag! some are excellent some are awful some lie somewhere inbetween.
Yet aircraft accidents are so final and tragic events for the occupants when something does go wrong.
The Chute does add a lifesaving option that is not in dispute with me!
Seeing the video promoting the chute above I noted that a fair few chute pulls were in icing or loss of control in cloud and failure to recover.
Both are areas these pilots should not have been ie out of the pilot or aircraft limits! Whether they were lacking currency or held ratings maybe they should not hold is irrelevant! They should not have been there.
That makes me question the false security the chute gives luring pilots into situations they cannot handle.
As stated I would not be comfortable flying at night in a SEP but know in my heart that I would feel a lot more comfortable doing so with a chuted aircraft!
So we have to be cautious that the chute does not create the very accidents it saves purely by being there.
The rest other than mid airs or pilot incapacitation should be more to do with training but we are still faced with the fact that the chute is a major addition to safety. If used correctly it is a wonderful thing to have.
Reading an accident like this one it beggars belief that such an incompetent pilot should be flying in those conditions but they do!
The Chute saved the fool from himself and hopefully may make him reappraise himself and learn from it.
As such I support the use of the chute but still have reservations on when it should be used and the fact that you have it should not tempt you into anything you would not do in a conventional aircraft without a get out of jail for free card.

Pace

I don't disagree with any of that.

And pretty much my view.

But for me and I suspect you as well, with my experence and skill level, the cost V reduction in risk level is not worth the reduction in risk by having one. As I said the additional 55ltrs of fuel would reduce my risk exposure more.

All interesting views and points and I can't fault your thinking MJ.

However, given you are of the opinion that

and you were flying a Cirrus over the Cairngorms do you think you could resist pulling the handle when you know the terrain is as you describe and you believe you are stuffed?

BB

To be honest if I was VFR I wouldn't be high enough for it to work.

IFR I would be at FL100 and be having a bloody good shot at gliding clear to either Deeside or Speyside. Mainly because if you did survive the crash the emergency services could get to you.

MJ

For pilots like you and maybe me we are unlikely to loose it in cloud or if we do not recover.
We probably know enough about icing not to push into icing we cannot loose with a short descent.

With an engine failure in most cases we would force land but over your lovely rugged mountains I would probably pull the chute.

I would pull the chute at night but then question whether I should be there and probably would not if the chute was not there.

The main reasons especially as you get older is the known fact that if anything happens to you your passengers well briefed have a good chance of survival.
The fact that you have a chute will probably encourage more of your chums to risk life and limb flying with you anyway :ok:
I read one successful chute pull where the pilot suffered a stroke on his own and came to long enough to pull the chute.

Should it be used as a cure all for every situation even when the aircraft is perfectly flyable??
My guess is something is wrong with training, examination, currency, ability etc!
Reading others here I have probably changed my mind and now accept that there are a bunch of not up to it pilots in the mix (as well as good ones)
If your a good one decide when and in what circumstances you will resort to the chute the rest ??? Go for the chute as a SOP as you are better alive than dead.

Pace

You see with that extra 55ltrs of fuel I would have absouletly no reason to be over the cairngorms in horrible conditions I would be up the east coast with loads of options.

MJ - on a serious point that is not always possible.

For example you may want to do a trip to the CIs or any other longer sea passage. Climbing high enough to glide to land may not be possible. Yes, of course you could refuse the trip without an extra engine, but then again not everyone has that luxury. Your assessment is that an engine failure is highly unlikely. However you might well take comfort from the chute subject to your assessment of the pros and cons of a water based landing with or without the chute. Unfortunately all the extra fuel in the world is not a substitute nor whatever more advanced skills it is that the pilot may possess.

Yep but look at the accident statistics and see where the real fatal dangers lies.

CI by far the most likely screwing up with your plans is that the viz will drop. This morning RVR was down to 50m I believe. That extra 55ltrs will get you way way past the coast and into France or back to the UK. Or you could use it to reduce your exposure to risk by taking a shorter crossing and running down the French coast. Which with the speed of the cirrus won't actually add that much extra sector time on if your coming from east of SOU.

Well that pretty much is the only thing it will give most people. Compared to having an extra 55ltrs of fuel onboard and the amount of risk that it reduces by having it.

Go to AAIB Air Accidents Investigation: Publications & Search Reports

And do a search over the last 30 years for "fatal" for GA aircraft.

Your kidding yourself if you think the chute is going to give you anything more than a natscock benefit.

As another poster said stop eating pies and icecream and you will reduce your risk more than having a chute.

MJ - the CIs was only an example of longer sea crossings which are well within the capability of the Cirrus with generous fuel reserves but where the chute provides an improved chance of surviving a ditching in the event of an engine failure. There are simply times however you cut it where you simply cant get from A to B and remain in glide distance of either A or B or achieve the same by routing some other way.

I know that been to Vargar enough times in the twin with points of no return and the works.

If your daft enough to do that sort of crossing in a single in atlantic or north sea waters the least of your worries is having a chute or not and surviving the landing. If you get out afterwards its going to give you an extra 6 mins of life unless you have a survival suit on and a life raft.

If you are even attempting such trips for ****s and giggles and not a pre planned ferry your PIC skills are severely compromised that having a chute aint going to reduce the risk factor. In fact why don't you ask a ferry pilot for a north atlantic crossing if they would prefer an extra 55ltrs on board or a chute. Lets face it if they did want one and thought it would do any good they be wearing one anyway. And from what I have seen of them departing west they hammer as much fuel as possible inside and give the middle finger to the MTOW.

In fact come to think of it hitting water straight down on a chute.

No undercarrage to take any energy away.

Flat wing and body onto a incompressable fluid it will be like hitting concrete.

All those bits of rope about which you can't cut even if your spine isn't shattered and you have gone from being 6ft tall down to 4 ft.

So more than likely I reckon you will be stuck inside the thing as well as having multiple bone issues through having a huge G forces applied which will proberly break your neck anyway.

Yep another huge risk reduction that one.

I think it is unfortunate that virtually every thread that deals with Cirrus aircraft eventually ends up in circular arguments about whether the CAPs encourages risk taking and an implied certainty that "real" pilots don't need a parachute.

The CAP's is a capability like all other aspects of the aircraft. The folks that do the hard thinking about the when and why of how they will utilize the capability are also the ones least likely to use it.

The Muppets who couldn't be bothered to research the considerable amount of advice and opinion available through COPA and other sources, self brief their SOP, practice deployment scenarios etc etc are the ones most likely to need the capability and most likely to not use/miss use it.

In other words it is just like every other part of GA. The Muppet quotient is IMO about the same in Cirrus pilots as it is in Bonanza/Commanche/C210/Lance/Robin etc etc pilots.

The choice for me is easy. The CAPs does not sufficently ameliorate the risk of flying a single engine aircraft at night or over water or unlandable terrain. Therefor I only do those trips in multi engine aircraft. However like MJ I have much more experience then most GA pilots because I fly for a living. I also have regular training in Multi engine aircraft emergencies. The bottom line is unless you have comparable experience I think my personal opinion on using CAPs is irrelevent to your particular situation.

What is important is that if you fly a CIrrus aircraft that you do the research into what it can and can't do for you and come up with some personal SOP's that you can use to help make the hard choice when the bad thing happens and the pressure is on......

Well it's not as if they really take the energy if you ditch conventionally either...

There have been several instances where CAPS have been deployed over water with successful outcomes; the only which wasn't was at very low altitude.

For a fixed gear aircraft if I had a chute I would pull it every time if I had to ditch, I know from having flown seaplanes just how likely the gear is likely to flip you over and I'd much rather maybe have a back injury and pretty much guarantee landing the right way up than run the risk of being upside down.

It is a weighing up of risk factors and what is likely to happen and what is not likely to happen.

You pay a premium for having a CAPS.

Now would the investment of that premium in other things negate more risk than investing it in CAPS? Say flying weekly instead of monthly.

To me and I suspect a few others an extra 55ltrs of fuel is more useful than the very remote possibilty of an engine failure. Again the same for flying over terrian which diverts need to planned sometimes hours in advance if the fuel is getting used not as predicted. Hell even sitting in the hold is preferable and getting where you actually want to go.

Now having my fair share of Spinnaker cockups in yachts in British waters I would love to see what happens when a chute plane goes in with even 10 knts of wind. I have seen mil drops go in the drink with chutes attached and they wern't floating, highly amusing, lots of swearing. Thats why they throw rafts out without chutes when dropping to stranded sailors.

Pace, this argument is the "Real Pilots Do Not need a Chute" and those that are "not up for it" or make it SOP off airport are "Not a good Pilot"

It also shows a certain Macho attitude on your side, taking hedges out and stuff and being ok and can therefore probably do it again, I just personally think that is also quite a dangerous attitude.

I respect whatever you wish to make your SOP as and when you have the option of the chute, you seem to have great difficulty in accepting what someone else decides is correct for them as being a reasonable decision and that it makes them somehow one of the bunch of not up to it Pilots:=

MJ I know you are never known to exaggerate, but I think you are getting slightly carried away here, any ditching is going to be a risky business but so far all have survived various Cirrus BRS Ditchings, the last one was a Father and Daughter with Engine failure who were totally uninjured and pulled at 2000ft.

One guy near NYC did have a back injury but was still able to swim to the shore unaided and was fully recovered within 6 months, pretty much certain in that case he would have been dead without the BRS.

In terms of 10 knots, believe me it would be fine, I do accept at 30 knots plus it is going to a factor and a much higher risk.

007

Nothing macho about it at all and those comments were not directed at you!
The fact is I would not in all situations pull the chute when I have a fully serviceable aircraft albeit without an engine :E in my hands!
In most circumstances I would use the skills I was taught to use and force land not pull the chute.
If as Cirrus recommend a forcelanding is unadvisable due terrain or up in MJ land I would pull the chute.
But remember the start of the thread was about a so called instrument pilot who was unable to fly a basic procedure like flying a runway heading and then looses it in what should have been a standard rate turn.
I question some pilots not being up to it? This Guy was not does that make me macho ? If so proud to be Macho

Pace

Except the few other 5000 people who bought a Cirrus may beg to differ, outsold Cessna, Piper and equivelant's put together I would guess.

Whats the big deal on the 55ltr of fuel you are banging on about so much. The Cirrus has around 5 hours endurance depending on what Model that can take you 800nm plus, more than enough for most PPL's to plan their route with ample fuel to spare.

Having done many 4+ hour legs to be honest that is enough for me.

That's probably where we differ most in opinion because I see no engine means uncertainty of landing area, you see no engine and are very confident (I might argue over confident) in your ability to in the heat of battle select a good field, arrive at a good field, and land successfully in a good field.

Yep can not argue with that, well ok just a bit.

We were not there, but we heard his account first hand, it sounds as you describe but lets be honest the system means you can get an IR never having flown in IMC, the system means you can have 6 approaches in 6 months and be legally current, yes this guy lost it on approach, he was not prepared, lost concentration, got overwhelmed, got distracted, got disorientated, did not feel well, whatever we do not know. I bet the same could happen to all sorts of guys on this site and in the wrong set of circumstances me included.

30 knts plus is normal in scotland and classed as a summer breeze in Shetland. You really don't want to see what its like when its a bit of a gale.

I think you should all have a look at the AAIB reports and see what you can really do to lower your risk exposure.

For a start if you don't do aero's you have cut a huge chunk out.

If you somehow mange to work out a way of getting to above 1000ft without actually taking off you would sort out another huge chunk.

Arranging that nobody else flys within 50 miles of you or the airport your landing at would account for another chunk. Or only fly in cloud.

Most of whats left is CFIT pilot error.

Less than 3% of the fatal accidents in the last 20 years would a CAP be of any use.

Personally I think the CAPS will be a bit of a fad which when there is no significant change in the accident rates or fatallity rates will eventually fall out of fashion. I would have thought we would have seen something by now if it was having an effect but the rates are very similar to 30-40 year old spam cans.

Not much of a premium in terms of the total cost of ownership, cheaper than smoking, and heck it has a 10 year maintenance free life , break it down over that period of time and to me it is about the best innovation in an industry that other than GPS was basically stagnant in terms of innovation for 4 seat SEP.

The fuel, weight, cost argument is BS and the market has proven that.

Good marketing for sales I will give you that. Realistically improving safety its really hasn't done anything significant apart from a few people giving interviews how they cheated death.

Actually stopping smoking would do more to reduce your risk flying than having a CAPS.