|
If so proud to be Macho |
Nah it would be the competent pilots float and would have a well stocked bar on it
The cirius pilots could follow behind with a float serving lemonade with a load of nets hanging off the side in case any one falls off being a clueless pillock. Our float would have a basic first aid kit which would only be opened as a last resort preferably by peeling the seal off so you could stick it back on again. The driver would avoid pot holes and take a suitable route to minimise the risk of anyone falling off. :p |
The cirius pilots could follow behind with a float serving lemonade with a load of nets hanging off the side in case any one falls off being a clueless pillock. |
As a matter of interest does anyone know the glide ratio of a Cirrus? I couldn't find it in a quick look on the manufacturer's site.
|
Best Glide Speed @ 3400 lb = 88 Knots IAS
Maximum Glide Ratio 9.6 : 1 so at 10,000ft AGL is 16 miles best glide Which at that altitude does give you quite a lot of options for nearest airport or an off airfield site if that is your thing. |
As a matter of interest does anyone know the glide ratio of a Cirrus? I couldn't find it in a quick look on the manufacturer's site. 007 only joking in a nice way;) I have moved a long way on using the chute! Just had a thought?land to fast and too long and fire off the chute for emergency air braking?? Might work! really. Fighter jets use drag chutes Pace |
Or from 2000ft around 3 miles to glide to the scene of the crash, if in doubt use the chute:ok:
Just had a thought?land to fast and too long and fire off the chute for emergency air braking?? Might work! really. Fighter jets use drag chutes |
007 only joking in a nice way I think we better call this informative and highly factual debate to an end, I want to quit while I am clearly winning the argument. |
Whats wrong with 2k at 3 for a normal approach? ;)
Aye right, still want my diet coke instead. |
9.6:1? I imagined it might be better than that probably because it looks quite slippery. I was prompted in this from MJ's talk of flying over the Cairngoms or, as we pedants prefer, the Grampians which I've been over many times myself. There's one bit where not much presents as a get-out but generally a valley offers a route to lower ground, but of course glide ratio counts.
|
007 - before you head off, just watched that COPA lecture. It makes some pretty compelling and persuasive arguments for the chute - and for the avoidance of doubt - I'm an a great advocate of it.
As a matter of interest, your SOP is pull the chute for an engine failure in VMC (plus a few other reasons). That being the case, do you therefore deem flight at night or in IMC over inhospitable terrain as an equivalent risk to a "normal" VMC flight - or is it still a much greater risk? MJ - you really are hard work, aren't you? This twaddle about having an additional 55 litres of fuel giving you a safer option than a chute? I mean, as if you are going to arrive at the same point with an "additional" 55 litres more in your 182(?) than you would do in a Cirrus? Nonsense! You plan your flight exactly the same way, reserves included. You are surely not trying to convince us that because you aren't carrying a chute, you always have an additional 55 litres on fuel on board at all times? Everyone falls into to the either for or against camp when it comes to the chute. I personally, am in favour. To those of you that think you are so experienced etc. etc. that you are infallible to making any mistakes, incurring any technical or physical difficulties etc, I think you are kidding yourselves. |
No I am just a pilot that has done alot of routes with min IFR fuel onboard and to me any extra fuel means extra in the hold multiple diversion options and a distinct reduction in bum twitching.
Never felt the need for a chute yet. Glad I have had extra fuel onboard weekly and I suspect daily in the not so distant future with winter coming and runway de-icing becoming a factor. Carrying fuel burns fuel just as carrying any other dead weight. O have you seen whats going to hit on friday in the UK? Now that is a major ballache on the horizon. And I say again look at the accident reports you are reducing your risk by a miniscule amount. |
The chute and the fuel are in fact both energy management devices. Simples really.
The fuel gives you the energy to go further, the chute gives you the ability to dissipate all the energy you don't want really quickly. When we sail, get utterly exhausted after a pounding and have had enough of surfacing down 40 foot waves (been there, done it, really) we chuck the chute over the stern ( and we might even chuck it over the bow these days) because it absorbs all that horribly energy and restores tranquility. I give the analogy because MJ mentioned sailing. So I still like the idea of being able to change energy in to speed and distance but because I am a wimp I like the idea of being able to dump the energy really quickly when its too much for me, because the most precious thing fly aeros has taught me is life is all about energy management. Always be the master of the energy and you will be safe, let energy become your master and you are dead. Yep, great discussion, thank you, thanks MJ and Pace for mixing it up and challenging the ideas and I am sure we will come back to this one but its probably come full circle for me after however many pages. |
Nicely put.
Just in my experence its been so rare its never happened to me that I have wanted to dump all the energy. Now wanting to go further or have the option because it opens up more escape routes....... yep thats the one for me. |
I agree MJ the overall risk reduction of the chute is probably not particularly high for a competent and current pilot because as you point out most accidents are caused by some sort of human error/failure of judgement. Also there are few accidents caused by truly insurmountable mechanical failures and many caused by the mismanagement of those failures...the Cirrus at Zurich a few years ago springs to mind for example... (where ironically had they just pulled the chute from the outset they would have looked very silly but probably the pilot would have lived nonetheless)
However there are a few CAPS deployments on the now famous Cirrus list that stand out for me and make me think that for what is actually quite a small penalty in terms of weight (in fact I don't really think it is at all in the real world as the Cirrus W&B compares reasonably well with it's competitors) if I were buying an aircraft tomorrow and were thinking of getting a fast single the CAPS would be a big pro for the Cirrus. The chute deployment instances like the broken aileron, the guy who had a seizure or the engine failure over water demonstrate the apart from saving people from themselves the chute can be very good at saving those very rare instances that despite being very unlikely...do happen. It may not add that much overall safety, but it's another layer of safety on top of currency, good training etc that one day one might just be glad of. I also find it strange that Cirrus pilot's come in for criticism in the area of training. As a manufacturer Cirrus probably takes more interest in the training of the people who fly them than any other. The standardised course is a very good idea and the Cirrus Owners and Pilot's Association is probably more active in the role of dissemination of advice and acting as a forum for ideas than any other association for a light single. Unfortunately they can't force everyone to take part in it... |
Contact Tower
For me the biggest plus for the chute is the passengers. PPLs do vary a lot in their abilities and currency. A failure in a single pilot either because he becomes ill or gets into more than he can handle means the pilot and passengers have a way of getting out of the situation. Not only can the pilot pull the chute but also the passengers which means that they have control over their destiny too. Looking at the video it is plain to see that the chute has encouraged pilots into situations where they are out of their depth. A lot of chute pulls have been loss of control in IMC or Icing pilots being where they are not competant to be as in this case. A get out of jail for free card. That needs to be looked at in more detail and may account for the no better than average safety stats. I have serious doubts on 007s stance of using the chute as a SOP for all engine failures. I would certainly not use it above a city where I could glide clear or over flat greenfields or where surface winds are above 10 kts! I would only use it for engine failure where there was no suitable landing spot. Over dense forest or mountains! But yes the way to go for PPL SEP flying but with some cautions and caveats and certainly NOT a replacement for solid piloting skills. One thing which is very clear is to work out your own SOP with the chute whatever that is and be clear about it. The worst thing with this extra option is indecision Pace |
As a matter of interest, your SOP is pull the chute for an engine failure in VMC (plus a few other reasons). That being the case, do you therefore deem flight at night or in IMC over inhospitable terrain as an equivalent risk to a "normal" VMC flight - or is it still a much greater risk? I do not do much night flying and to be honest I am not current. I do quite often fly over very inhospitable terrain on my travels and there is still a significant risk with the chute in this environment which can only be worse at night, at least in day you may be able to glide to a better area to deploy and have a chance of being found by SAR. |
I have serious doubts on 007s stance of using the chute as a SOP for all engine failures. Seriously I accept totally this SOP is not right for everyone but with my SOP I think I have a pretty reasonable chance of survival, or probably a much better than average chance of survival. However straight forward engine failure is not the main threat. One thing which is very clear is to work out your own SOP with the chute whatever that is and be clear about it. The worst thing with this extra option is indecision |
However straight forward engine failure is not the main threat. Pace |
:D they won't want to hear that Pace.
It doesn't matter what techno gadgets you fit on an aircraft it will always boil down to that fact. You can throw 100's of thousands if not millions at a airframe you won't change the statistics at all, its all dependent on the person flying it. It's actually quite amusing. Just had a discussion tonight why I won't fly Air France with a frog. They couldn't understand the difference that BA have a fleet of auld ****e haulers but I would be happy to fly with them because of the folk at the front but I wouldn't be happy to fly with the newer AF fleet because of the issues they have with the crew standards. |
You can throw 100's of thousands if not millions at a airframe you won't change the statistics at all, its all dependent on the person flying it. Fundamentally the crew are always the most effective way to improve safety however I do believe that safety can be improved at the margin by improvement in technology. GPWS, glass cockpits, better autopilots and now innovations like synthetic vision make a single pilot operation less stressful from the flying point of view, giving one more time to think strategically and making mistakes less likely. This should translate into more safety...and on the whole for a competent pilot I believe it does. The problem is that, like with the chute, the benefits are obscured by the wider issue of the general poor safety record in GA because of human factors/incompetence/stupidity call it what you will... It doesn't make those hardware improvements redundant though, and doesn't mean that for a competent pilot the chute does not have a role to play in situations were the problem is insurmountable or the conventional landing option has a poor chance of success. |
What is the main threat? The pilot!!! No one forces them to launch into xyz weather, terrain, or make a journey, it is down to PIC decision making. Arguments about new technology, training, marketing, all have valid pro's and con's but at the end of the day PIC is responsible for the conduct of that flight. Maybe one way of looking at it, take a Pilot like me, and a Pilot like Pace. We have different levels of experience but given the choice ( I Think) would both prefer access to a modern aircraft, call it a SR22 with a BRS Chute. We have a different outlook on when and why to use it. The aircraft is equipped with Modern avionics. Are we any safer than in a PA28 with steam gaugues? maybe marginally. Are we more likely to kill our selves in one type or another? probably not. Is my or his SOP for forced landings that big a deal in actual life expectancy ? probably not. So from what I have read while we both have a different outlook and level of training we are both likely relatively safe with our SOP. Take a poorly trained, poor decision maker, big risk taker, not very experienced Pilot and put them in either aircraft and on average I am guessing they would have a similar chance of killing themselves in either aircraft. So yes, in my opinion it is the Pilot. |
007
I really do think not enough credence is given to the confidence factor of the chuted Cirrus and its roll in creating accident situations which it is a last resort for! Lets look at a few scenarios. Pilot X had heart problems becoming unwell in the street the fitting of stents and he eventually got his medical back but still in the back of his mind are the heart problems he suffered. Is Pilot X more likely to feel comfortable flying a Cirrus with the knowledge that if he ever became unwell again he could pull the chute? Pilot A always struggled with instrument flying and although passing the ratings struggled! Other pilots knew him as someone who was really not that confident. Pilot A was using his aircraft for a business trip and it was an IMC day He got the TAFS and the weather was due to drop around the time of his arrival. Pilot A thought that all would be OK he would get in the destination airport before the weather closed down and he was forced to take an instrument approach which without his instructor he was not sure he would cope with. He allayed his fears with the thought that if the worst happened and the weather was down when he got there and he really could not cope he would not die he had the chute. Pace is used to flying high performance multi engine aircraft at night and having had a number of piston engine failures had serious doubts over flying singles at night. While an engine failure at night was unlikely the thought was there. Pace had access to a Cirrus which now gave pace another option. Unlikely engine failure on a dark night and pace could pull the chute. Pace was now a lot more happy flying a single piston at night! The list goes on but looking at that accident video it is apparent that the chute is luring pilots into situations that they or the aircraft cannot handle as it is seen as a get me out of prison for free card if all goes tits up. I have no doubts about this ignored factor and its impact on accident statistics which I am sure would be far better for the aircraft. Some will say that it is because pilots do not pull the chute. Of course not as another said what pilot will want to wreck his aircraft? Their priority will be to try and recover before resorting to the chute and maybe leaving it too late but the comfort factor should not be ignored. 007 There is nothing on the face of it wrong with a comfort factor as being more relaxed flying makes for better pilots but with it comes the awareness that the chute takes you to places that no other beer reaches and that maybe a pint too much Pace |
Pace - I wasn't going to contribute again but honestly yours is a ridiculous argument. Of course some pilots might just about be stupid enough to rely on the chute, but you cant hold back developments such as this on the strength of your argument. I know more than a few pilots who would be really uncomfortable flying with a six pack they are so accustom to glass screens and all the extra help they provide, all sorts of changes in car engineering makes it much safer to be on the road .. .. .. so what is your point, lets not have chutes because they might encourage a few pilots to fly in conditions beyond their ability? I know plenty of instrument pilots that would find flying without an AI in IMC way beyond their ability - and its always been that way and probably always will, so do we outlaw AIs? In fact how many pilots would set off these days without an AI, but once upon a time no one had an AI in their aircraft. They hadn't been invented. No, we teach pilots new technology as well as we can, we encourage them to understand the risks and pitfalls, we explain the risks of over confidence and why you might want to still be able to fly the aircraft without a functioning AI but if they don't like the message or don't want to listen its called free will.
So I just don't understand your point - sorry. What is it you want to do? Ban chutes? Teach pilots more of their possible shortcomings - well I think you will find almost all Cirrus pilots are a pretty well informed lot these days - some may have come to a different conclusion that you, but I would suggest that is their prerogative. Legislate to ensure no one could argue they haven't been informed? It doesn't work! We inform smokers every day that it will kill you if you smoke, but they keep buying the packs. They actually pay to kill themselves. You can tell pilots till you are blue in the face dont rely on the chute - but some will. You can tell instrument pilots how important it is to keep current, to be able to fly on partial panel etc., but some will fly without being current and some will suffer become partial panel and lose control. What is it you seek? |
What is it you seek An informed discussion about all the pros and cons of what is a first from a major manufacturer. I think you will find the fact that it is a first will generate a lot of discussion which is only natural! When we start to move away from taught practice ie engine failure is it odd to you that that should not also be discussed. As for the chute as I have posted I have shifted my opinion through discussions with people like you and 007. I have also posted that I hope other manufacturers follow suit so hardly wanting to ban chutes infact the very opposite. Fuji I hope it is fully discussed and not taken as an attack on Cirrus. Because there are important points to fully discuss. Further the manufacturer has not given definative directions on its use for reasons you have stated so when and where to use the chute will be unofficial and open to personal interpretation hence more important that every angle is discussed. 007 with his pull on all engine failure policy had not considered winds and a possible 30mph plus forward impact. Now he is aware of that it may add some further thought in his pull or not to pull decisions. So tell me is there a problem with discussing the chute in fine detail??? Pace |
So tell me is there a problem with discussing the chute in fine detail??? My "concern" was the discussion doesn't become circular. To be fair you have promoted the notion on numerous occasions that the chute might engender over confidence in some pilots - I don't think anyone disputes that is a possibility. To be fair you have also promoted the idea that Cirrus should say more about the chute - we debated why they don't, and I cant see anyone has anything new or different to contribute. I just dont see what you were seeking to achieve, or add to the debate, by giving some circumstances in which pilot's might be overly confident because of the chute - no one is disagreeing with you! On the assumption that much you accept, I assumed there was something else on your mind - but I cant understand what it could be? That is why from my point of view unless anyone really has anything new to contribute I think the thread has run its course for now - but as I said above go round in circles as much as you like for all I care. ;) |
Pace:
It has been interesting to observe the fruits of much fine-detailed thinking and discussion that has been going on amongst Cirrus/BRS manufacturers/owners/pilots - for over ten years now- making its way to you via PPRUNE, 007 and effectively COPA. I admire that you have been able to absorb new points, evolve your point of view and share sensible counter-points in the discussion (eg 30 knot surface winds) and grow your (and wider) appreciation for the safety value, subtleties and pitfalls presented by the existence of BRS through discussion. You have an appetite to discuss even further detail, but I think you dissuade discussion of finer detail by simultaneously persisting with highly subjective propositions. E.g. "He allayed his fears with the thought that if the worst happened and the weather was down when he got there and he really could not cope he would not die he had the chute." If there are those who regard a chute pull as a no-consequences get out jail free 'easy out' reason to go flying where/when they should not their lack judgement (and imagination) is a very big risk to them, period. Perhaps any population has a small Darwinian element, whose behaviors (actual or perceived) tend to be given greater prominence in discussion than those of the vast majority who would gain value from discussion of points that they themselves can consider/control/influence. Finer discussion on BRS would largely be about exploring more of the many grey areas in more depth than a quest for "Black and White" answers/POH content. Factors present in a real-life pull/no-pull circumstance are so many and varied and preclude the concrete 'circumstance proof' guidance that you seek. Identifying, considering and incorporating (or not) those factors into "SOPS" is where each individual BRS pilot makes his own choice - even as to whether or not he/she chooses to explore/discuss them - and is where discussion threads like these can, I believe, contribute to participants safety (excepting another very small part of the population whose judgement and performance is so consistently high that they will, with no need of a BRS, either safely handle any circumstance which fate might send their way, or accept that fate if not able to effect a good outcome for whatever reason). |
007 There is nothing on the face of it wrong with a comfort factor as being more relaxed flying makes for better pilots but with it comes the awareness that the chute takes you to places that no other beer reaches and that maybe a pint too much For some it may just be to risky to fly a SEP without a chute, I now have flown nothing else (other than helicopters) for the last 4-5 years and for me I personally prefer the Cirrus I feel comfortable and confident in and am not sure how I would feel about going to a non BRS aircraft as a permanent option, it would feel like a backward step and in my mind increase my risk. My partner would strongly agree and in many ways I feel partners and uninformed passengers think it is "ammazing and fantastic to have a chute" and they have an over optimistic view of its value but it certainly makes the uninformed feel much safer. I am trying to think about my own situation and in the cold light of day, I would have to confess yes it does expand my risk taking, lets use IMC as an example, I am reasonably proficient but would not say great in IMC. I do value the Autopilot greatly for long journeys and times of high work load, I know I would not do many long journeys in a non auto pilot, non glass, non BRS equipped aircraft because I am use to these tools and I would now feel unsafe and partially naked without them. If they fail me I train and practice and think I can do a reasonable job of getting back to the ground intact. But yes, if I get over whelmed and can not cope with the conditions, then in reality that last resort is there, and to some degree even if only subconsciously it must effect my decision making. |
007
I have a pretty good idea from these discussions what my own SOP will be when I take up some rental time on a Cirrus! Still looking forward to meeting up with you! I would use the chute more than I would have done when we discussed the chute originally and I hope you might not be quite so trigger happy with the chute as you were? I don't think any if us practice force landings without power nearly enough and yet that subject has not even figured in these discussions! Maybe they do not need too anymore ? Pace |
"I've got a 'chute, so I don't need/won't bother to maintain proficiency in pfl's" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: if the engine quits for real, you pull the 'chute because you're not in current practice.
Remember also the need to keep current in case the engine quits below 'chute deployment height. Establishing the aircraft in a glide configuration still needs to be an automatic reaction if it suddenly goes quiet. |
Not just below 500 feet the most likely point for an engine failure but in strong wind flying where you may deeply regret pulling the chute rather than using those strong winds to your advantage in a forced landing!
So yes if your not confident in forced landings practice them time and time again until you are. The chute is a major safety development but not a replacement for lack of skills! If as Fuji says I go round in circles so be it :E Must practice my holding patterns :E Pace |
007 I have a pretty good idea from these discussions what my own SOP will be when I take up some rental time on a Cirrus! Still looking forward to meeting up with you! I don't think any if us practice force landings without power nearly enough and yet that subject has not even figured in these discussions! Maybe they do not need too anymore ? I suppose everyone would argue it is easy to arrive on the airfield from 2000ft directly overhead, but I think even that is not that easy to do everytime and not come up short, so it reinforced my limitations in this situation, but I will continue to practice, when you come down we can do a dozen. "I've got a 'chute, so I don't need/won't bother to maintain proficiency in pfl's" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: if the engine quits for real, you pull the 'chute because you're not in current practice. Remember also the need to keep current in case the engine quits below 'chute deployment height. Establishing the aircraft in a glide configuration still needs to be an automatic reaction if it suddenly goes quiet. At higher altitudes if you fully trim back it pretty much gives you best glide speed so you can then concentrate more on getting it started, looking for a landing spot, or deciding when to pull. |
Sillert I see your point but I think plenty without a chute are lousy at PFL's, how many time do they come up short and the instructor says, shall we have another go? I understand what you are getting at but remember as long as you keep flying and do not stall/spin in the incidence of fatal/serious injury in a forced landing are low! You also presume that in an uncontrolled descent under the chute there is no risk which I would dispute! Infact at a guess equal or worse than a forced landing especially if there is wind around. Pace |
You also presume that in an uncontrolled descent under the chute there is no risk which I would dispute! No where have I ever stated there is no risk, you put words into my mouth !! I have gone out of my way to acknowledge risk under a CAPS pull and fully recognize despite all CAPS pull's to date in a Cirrus within limitations no one has died but this record can not continue. Of course there is risk - just in my opinion less than a forced landing, under stress, in a field, that looked good at 1000ft, where plenty have cocked it up and died. |
007
We have done this to death and only time will tell if your attitude to a chute pull for engine failure is correct. There are situations where I would pull the chute on engine failure mainly at night or over unsuitable terrain. But I am not in a position to judge whether you are right or wrong so no hard feelings and I am looking forward to meeting up and getting a flight with you! Pace |
I was trying to find a link for it online and don;t know if its been mentioned.
But the last GASCO newsletter had a refence to a study about EFIS displays and an increasing accident rate in the TO approach and go-around phases. Does anyone have a link to said study? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:41. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.