Cirrus SR22 Chute Pull - (Post landing Video) Birmingham Alabama 6th Oct 2012
 

Thankfully both passenger and pilot walked away, appears Pilot lost control in IMC on approach and elected to pull the chute, probably the most detailed video of a post chute pull.

They already have, into a field by the looks of it.

Airframe pretty well written off. Looks to have done the job as advertised.

In fact I was thinking it did not look to bad, I know several have been successfully repaired after chute pulls but likely not economic on N80KW which is a 2006 G2.

BRS Parachutes
 

Wondering if the abnormally high number of Cirrus accidents (and/or airframe parachute deployments) is linked to the pilot’s resignation (attitude) when confronted to an abnormal situation. Because of the very availability of the parachute system (CAPS), the pilot seems to deploy it instead of dealing with the situation. Comments appreciated.

If you are genuinely interested in this question and not some troll just looking to stir the pot then I would suggest you use the search function as there have already been several long threads on this very subject

Cirrus interesting account
 

I think this is a very interesting first hand account of a recent chute deployment.

The purpose of the thread is not to rekindle the debate about chutes (albeit it probably will ;)) but to hear from a pilot who found himself in serious difficulties on an approach and who would almost certainly not be able to give this account were it not for the chute. In short its the sort of incident we never hear the pilot's side of.

Its interesting to speculate what you might have done differently and at what point you would have decided to relinquish flying the aircraft and pull the chute.

As I said it might make the discussion more interesting if we try and avoid going over the usual chestnuts about whether the chute is a good thing and whether it encourages pilots to do something they wouldn't if it were not for the chute. Lets just take it as read the pilot got himself into the situation for whatever reason and the chute happened to enable him to survive a pretty harsh lesson.

The only thing I can get from that is if you not a competent instrument pilot get a cirrus and you might live to tell the tale.

Personally I would have continued down the ILS or whatever approach I was cleared for and landed. 700ft cloud base and no RVR's thats doing a NDB approach for ****s and giggles territory.

Mad Jock

Listening to that report I do not know what to say. Fuji and others have convinced me about the benefits of the chute and I am all for this as the way ahead in the future of other SEPs.

Listening to the report I must admit on thinking what on earth was this guy doing flying approaches as he was a totally incapable instrument pilot who wrecked an aircraft due to his inabilities.

No wonder his girlfriend got a commercial back as I doubt she will ever set foot in an aircraft with this pilot again!

A bit like a second engine on a twin the chute gives options and is an excellent addition to safety for the pilot who respects that and uses it as a back up to his skills.

This is worrying as it shows a poor and incapable instrument pilot who should not have been flying in conditions he was not up to!

How much the chute lead him to fly in conditions he was not up to ????
I have my suspicions ?

Regardless thankfully for the chute they survived but there are some hard lessons to be learnt and some big cautions in false security that the chute may bring! If having it there encourages pilots to fly in conditions they or the aircraft are not up to then its a worrying addition.

That pilot was not up to a fairly easy approach and cloudbase.

One good thing he was humble about it so lets hope he gets some proper training and competence before heading off into the clouds again.

Pace

The point of the post was more to drive at what a VFR only pilot might have done in these circumstances given the other equipment available to him and at what point he would have been "right" to bail out. Also I think the recording is an interesting insight into how quickly things can go wrong for any pilot straying into conditions beyond his ability. I get the impression its fair to say the pilot was inexperienced - he says he had been flying for 10 years and had had an engine quit on him and obviously pulled off a successful forced landing.

I couldn't work out...was this guy actually IR rated or not?

Neither could I Contact.

Pace I wasn't having a go at the chute or having the chute or even using it. More of WTF was he doing in that bit of sky in the first place with or without a chute.

I very much doubt that a chute would lul a VFR only pilot to fly an approach in instrument conditions.

I could imagine that a highly automated aircraft with a full 3 axis autopilot and large glass screen avionics could "encourage" a VFR only pilot to let the aircraft (autopilot) fly the IFR stuff while they just watched ready to take over when they became VFR again, but the chute would seem a misnomer to me.

And if he had that and had it hooked in why did he loose controls with what appears to be a case of the leans.

The interviewer made a comment at the end that two blocks away there was an area full of kids skate boarding obviously implying that it was lucky they came down where they did.
The implications are that pulling the chute over built up areas may one day bring about an aircraft landing under the chute on top of people or cars and the bad press that will bring the chute.

playing it back it is unclear whether the pilot was on an instrument approach or flying VMC on top expecting a 2000 foot cloud base when it turned out to be 700 feet.

Either way one has to question the pilot as he was obviously in cloud without the skills to be there.

That brings the concern that while the chute is a wonderful thing the down side is that it may give a false sense of security which encourages pilots to fly out of their abilities at night or in weather which itself creates accidents which would not occur through caution in conventional aircraft!

Fuji I am not attacking the chute as you have convinced me of its worth even for SOME engine failures but I still have concerns on the false sense of security angle which this may imply! As well as training and education which maybe required into the possible results of the chute in potentially dangerous locations not just to people on the ground but to pilots too.

Further thinking and training needs to be addressed to avoid that pitfall.

Pace

Sorry MJ. I wasn't specifically refering to this case. It seem obvious that he wasn't using the auto pilot, though he could of course been using it and turned it off thinking it had failed. Very unlikely though.

I was making a more general point.

As a VFR only pilot I could not see myself being even remotely tempted to make an IFR approach because I could pull the chute if it went wrong. After all if it all goes wrong I'm going to be very close to the ground and I'm going to have an aircraft which is written off at best.

On the other hand if I figured the autopilot could fly me to 200ft on an ILS and the cloud base was 700ft, and the only thing I had to worry about was an autopilot failure in the few minutes it takes to make the approach, I could see how that might be tempting. I wouldn't do it, but I could see how someone would be tempted and I have a feeling that a fair amount of that might go on. No real evidence, just a feeling from some of the accident reports that I've read.

DublinPilot

I can see where a not proficient instrument pilot knowing he has a chute might push on into conditions which are worse than his abilities thinking he has a way out if it all goes pear shaped.
In the same way as a cautious night SEP pilot I would be more inclined to fly at night simply through the fact that the chute was there! Without any shadow of a doubt I would fly more at night with the chute rather than in a conventional aircraft!
That is not against the Cirrus or the chute just stating a fact which we all need to be aware of.
Accidents will increase because of the chute while lives will be saved because of the chute!

Pace

Was there not another Cirrus, accident, then discussion on Pprune, about the guy on the night flight to Jersey, who untimately went in, It was interesting because if I recollect, the discussion centered on the Cirrus IR automation/GPS coupling, with of course the chute, if even all of that went pear shaped?? This gave rise to a general discussion on pilots taking on flights/situations. where they were not competent, but had acres of automation. perceived safety gadgets?

This then led to an unsafe, wrong mindset, particularly in Cirrus aircraft. specifically because of the chute?

Dubin to be fair this pushing it into IMC with an autopilot has been around for years and has a fairly unhealthy death toll to prove its been happening as well.

The chute I don't think will have changed this much apart from the people are around afterwards to tell the tale.

Yes I can see how the chute might affect the decision making for night flight and vfr on top. Both of those are about taking a relatively low risk but serious consequences activity, and for the first time giving you a way out.

It would probably have a serious affect on my decision making in those circumstances too.

Can't see it encouraging me to hand fly an IFR approach though.;)

Dublin Pilot

As stated by others we are not aware whether this pilot was IR rated or whether he was indeed a pilot fly VFR on top who expected to break cloud at 2000 feet and found infact that the cloud was at 700 feet.
In that situation he should have asked for help from ATC and been vectored to VMC conditions.
Instead he appeared to try to break cloud was unable to fly a runway heading on a go around and then lost control attempting a turn under ATC instructions!
Whatever he did not have the abilities to be where he was and by the looks of things did not get TAFS or ignored them.
Had he been flying a 172 would this have happened or worse??
The Cirrus does have a very sharp roll rate I timed it as the same as a Firefly aerobatic machine so it would be easy to overcontrol in roll in cloud especially for an inexperienced instrument pilot.
He would have fared better engaging the autopilot and getting ATC help.

Pace

Pace,

Your post reads to me as if you are trying to disagree with me (and I appreciate that tone is difficult to read on a forum).

But I haven't disputed anything you say in your last post, and indeed wouldn't because I agree with it entirely.

The only point I'm trying to make is that I think the role of the chute is over stated in this incident. I can't see a VFR pilot chosing to do an IFR approach based on having a chute available.

If someone tried to make the argument that having fancy automatiion would encourage them then I could see the point.

I accept fully that a chute can change risk assessment in other areas, but find it difficult to believe it would encourage a VFR only pilot to do an instrument approach.

Well I may disagree with that. The issue appears to be that the chute mentality encourages individuals to give it a go. Whether it be flying at night, whether it be an IMC approach, there would appear to be an indication that some individuals see the chute as 'life saver' in any event. This regardless of their capabilities/ratings.

I think there is a study on this somewhere. I will try and find it.

Ruminations on BRS

Found it.

Maxred I would not say this was a study, more Paul Bertorelli's ruminations and personal opinions if the chute add's a false confidence.

Plenty of Pilots are killed for bad decision making in planes with or without BRS and the situation the author quotes is one of those.

The sad thing about the BRS in a Cirrus is that the vast majority of fatal's occur with a perfectly good chute intact, the pilot simply is not trained in its use, forgets to use it or leaves it to late.

What ever the guys error in this particular situation he did what he was trained to do, at a critical time and likely saved his life and that of his innocent passenger.

It sounds like Pilot Error.

Inevitably over time I am sure there will be a Chute pull that causes damage to someone on the ground but it has not happened in the last decade so a low risk in overall scheme of things, In this incident it was total luck that it landed in a relatively small open area, yes it could have been a much worse outcome.

The alternative in this Alabama case was I assume without a chute pull he would have impacted the ground / property / kids school or whatever at a very high speed and inertia with probable fire on impact.

Yes he was and on an IFR Flight plan.

From what I can see a Florida Based aircraft which might suggest not often flying in Actual IMC.

I have formed the theory that the Cirrus is no different to any other sort of aeroplane, but we hear more about the Cirrus because the pilot pulls the chute and survives to tell the tail.

In your typical spam can, the pilot either gets out of it by the skin of his teeth, lives, and no one hears about it (other than in the pub) or dies in spectacular fashion. I can remember many PA28's being involved in VMC into IMC type accidents but when these happen everyone goes "my condolences", "we shouldn't speculate", "Wait for the AAIB report" and 2 years on we have forgotten about it.

Maybe if this chap didn't have a chute he would have got away with it and no more would have been said, or he would have died. As he had the third option of the chute, which makes the chance of survival higher, then he pulls it and it makes the news.

Hard to speculate on the psychology of the Cirrus 'chute not being a psychologist but I think Pace has probably hit the nail on the head with his 'more Cirrus accidents, more pilots walk away' comment.

So you have to say that if the Cirrus didn't have a 'chute then there would be less Cirrus accidents for pilots to walk away from.

It would be interesting to look back on say the last five years GA accidents in the UK and say which ones would have had a better outcome if there was a 'chute available.

Pace - you have identified the point I thought the discussion would have explored.

The Cirrus has a very effective autopilot. There was no suggestion it had malfunctioned.

I don't know how much time the pilot had in a Cirrus, or indeed any aircraft with an equivalent autopilot. However for anyone in this situation that has had a half acceptable level of training on the aircraft I would have expected the pilot to have engaged the autopilot in heading mode, followed immediately by a climb to recover VMC on autopilot. Set the bug, vs and hit the buttons and up she goes. Now I havent looked up the airport and have no idea whether there were any immediate terrain concerns given that I think he was at 1,000 feet. Maybe others might feel it was already too late to engage the autopilot, hence my comment earlier - at what point do you bail out.

Was it indicative of a lack of planning before commencing the approach. Should he have made a proper study of the sectional and know what terrain concerns there might be?

Food for thought.

Fuji

There is no doubt the chute saves lives as is well demonstrated in this event.

I am sold on the virtues of the chute so you do not need to convince me :E
I am not sold on some of the virtues of the pilots and in this case I am stunned the guy was IR rated.

Without any shadow of doubt the chute will encourage pilots into areas they cannot cope with!

As stated I do not like flying singles at night but I am sure I would be happy doing so in the Cirrus as the chute would give me an out!

On an ink black night you have no outs only the hope that what lies below is suitable to land on in the event of an engine failure.

I do not fly without outs as that is a game of Russian Roulette. The Cirrus would give me that out at night and hence I would fly at night! Would flying at night increase my chances of an accident? probably yes.
The same goes with weather or icing would the chute encourage me to press on looking for better weather ahead knowing that if ahead was a hell hole I had the option of an out? probably yes!

Would your non flying PAX be relieved if you briefed them on the use of the chute should you suffer a heart attack or stroke.
Of course they would! Why??? Because again it gives them an out if you blacked out at the controls and they were faced with death themselves.

So we are kidding ourselves if we think the chute will not make pilots more confident and will not encourage them to stray into conditions caution would normally keep them clear of!

That is something that we need to be aware of not something which rubbishes the chute.

This is the first production aircraft to come equipt with an in built chute system!
As it appears to be very efficient there are a whole new areas of operation where we need to consider the use of the chute like an engine failure.

Conventional aircraft the decision is clear you have to keep the aircraft flying to the ground and you have to be accurate! The chute brings in a new option a new "out"
With more options come more decisions! With more decisions the option to make the wrong decision! same as the extra engine in a twin.

The chute should not be used at the first sign of trouble but as a last resort after conventional solutions are considered too risky!

That is where new training should be in making pilots better equipt at making judgments quickly and acting on them and being aware of being lulled into a false sense of security that having a chute gives.

At present there seems to be little manufacturer guidance!!! hence the subject of the Cirrus and its chute will generate discussion and debate as well as a certain amount of controversy!

Pace

Lack of planning who knows, terrain was not an issue at this airport.

I am not certain but recall hearing around 500 hours, with regards the autopilot I totally agree that is one way to have the automation help but really only all the while the Pilot is thinking clearly and still in control of the aircraft.

If as appears in this case here he lost control, was disorientated at 1000ft in IMC, then I think the chute was the right option.

I understand we all argue he should never have lost control, should be able to easily cope with those conditions, should have planned better but something went wrong and he did the right thing regarding the chute.

I heard on the same day a Baron at the same airport lost control on approach and two people perished.

Pace I think the problem is being IR rated and IR current are worlds apart, for you and guys like MJ who fly week in week out and maybe do 100's of approaches each year it is easier for you to stay current and gain a big bag of experience and better skills.

For me and most others on this Private Flying section who are basic PPL's it is much tougher, I fly around 120 - 150 hours a year. Most of my approaches in IMC are due to a desire to practice and to try and stay current and improve my skills, I would say I only do 2 or 3 a year in actual IMC for the actual purposes of travel and my minimums are conservative from a planning point of view.

So I can easily see how this guy and plenty of others ended up in trouble, no idea how current or well trained or otherwise he was but this could happen (and does) to plenty of PPL's

I totally agree but also dependent on altitude and therefore time to find a solution, I do not think this guy had many seconds left to solve the problem he should never have got into in the first place.

The chute is very ineffective as an option on approach, if you mess it up on that phase there is very few situations where it is effective.

Approach, base to final turn's (read stalls) , incorrect landing speeds, and botched go around,s are a high proportion of Cirrus Fatal's and virtually all are Pilot Error and therefore either currency, incompetency or incorrect training and the Chute is a useless options in these 3 scenario's.

Well in FAA land he should have done six approaches in the last six months, not a lot really but surely enough to ensure he wasn't going to lose control in relatively benign conditions by the sound of it. If he wasn't current he shouldn't have filed IFR.

One does here of incidents of IR rated pilots losing control in IMC, mostly in the US because the US has a much larger PPL/IR contingent. Very rare indeed and certainly not enough to offset the overall safety benefit of having more PPL/IRs but I have heard of cases...usually happens after an equipment failure or in turbulence but not always. Some will have had chutes, most not though and likely some will have paid the ultimate price for their loss of control. Thankfully this guy walked away.

I noted from the interview that the interviewer didn't actually get out of him why the crash actually happened...the guy made it sound like the aircraft started spontaneously doing things and that he was just a passenger. I was also amused that he said things like "we train for this all the time..." as if pulling the chute was some sort of complicated procedure that needed training for.

I'm very pro-chute in general but the tone of the interview made me think this guy was an idiot; if he made a mistake, fine, people do and I for one would never assert that oft heard assertion that "that would never happen to me", but if sounded like he was being very dishonest about what had actually happened. If he'd explained to the interviewer that actually he had lost control of his plane on a routine approach and then crashed near a school I doubt the interviewer would have been so praiseworthy...:ugh:

Wow two accidents in one day? Are there details of the Baron crash?

Contact Tower

I tend to agree! The guy came over as a complete idiot! I think the only thing he was trained in was the use of the chute as there does not appear to be any displayed evidence of anything else running around in his brains.

"We are highly skilled This is what we train for all the time PULL THE CHUTE!"

I am surprised he did not claim to have a PULL THE CHUTE TYPE RATING :ugh:
FLY THE AIRCRAFT? do not need to do that when I am PULL THE CHUTE rated
:ok:

Oh well at least the chute saved him and I hope he does a PPL course and some IR training in future :{ At least we know why our insurance rates are so high!

Pace

Never admit liability, especially in the USA !

Anyway it proves the chute works and is reliable.

I think the issue about training to pull the chute is actually one of learning a mindset to use it. Having followed some of the debates on the COPA forum about this, it's apparent that the chute could have saved more lives, if only the pilots had chosen to pull it in time. One of the reasons for not doing so might be not wanting to be portrayed as lacking in pilot skills. It seems you can't win either way!

007, sorry I got pulled last night for kids bedtime. I was aware that the link was to PB, rumination, and did not manage to find the other piece I am sure I read. I will continue to look.

The issue is of course, the same as any other. Pilots, whether they have chute or not, straying out of depth, and into situations where the skill set does not match the predicament. Happens every day, hence not much movement on GA fatality stats.

Agree the chute provides an excellent, last chance saloon escape, however, the fundamental, and we keep coming back to it, is proper and adequate training and recency, for flying. Be it Instrument approaches and flying, speed management, general flying skills and ability, or the ability to pull the chute correctly.

The dark question is, - does perceived and added safety features, push individuals into ever more risk. I think yes, however, those indivuduals may have gone there anyway, safety feature or not.

Are Cirrus accidents different? Do they perhaps attract or breed a different kind of pilot?

A few years ago, (pre Cirrus) there was an article in an American magazine headed the doctor killer. I think it was pointing a finger at Beechcraft Baron accidents. It was a type of aircraft the writer considered attracted the well heeled but more importantly, ambitious type that expected to be able to pay his money and go fly. Is the Cirrus the new doctor killer?

Dare I suggest to remain instrument current as a private pilot requires another level of dedication to ones hobby. It cannot be done by dedicating two hours per week. One hour for the drive to the airfield and one hour in the air. I think one needs to be totally immersed in aviation.

One further thought. It can't be easy to become disoriented when you have a muckle 10" artificial horizon in front of you!

D.O.