You seem to be missing my point - perhaps purposefully!? We aren't talking about landing on a bowling green that you gently ease the brakes on. :ugh::ugh: You don't know what the surface is like (and certainly not from 2000 ft), you don't know how smooth it is, if there are any ditches, tree stumps, how soft the ground is etc. etc. Therefore, you have no way whatsoever, knowing what the outcome will be and whether you will come to gradual stop or whether you will end up inverted or otherwise.

With the chute, you take almost all of the variables out of the equation. You land in one spot, get out and walk away, right side up - and so will your passengers. Granted, you can't guarantee it, no-one said you could, but the chances are massively in your favour because you are meeting the ground with less energy!!

Actually, I think you would have a fair idea of the surface - Australia + summertime = hot & dry. In horse racing parlance the going would be firm to good. And you must admit VMC, the field really (and I mean really) is big. Those trees look as if they are about a mile away -if not more.

This is all a bit childish - but whatever floats your boat.

It is all very well rehearsed.

1) A conventional forced landing that ends with a reasonable landing roll will turn out fine,
2) A conventional forced landing that ends with pilot loss of control, unseen power cables, large boulders, ditches, wire fences or other debri that cant be seen from x feet may work out less well,
3) In view of 2 some argue the chute will result in a more consistent and predictable outcome.

You can argue the toss as much as you like and it would be interesting to read anything new anyone has to say. As it is this is just the usual well rehearsed old ground, with the usual less than well informed opinions.

Don't let me stop you though, but it worries me a little that intelligent pilots wouldn't want to have a more intelligent conversation ;) rather than distorting past discussion (assuming they have taken the trouble to read that).

The field does look big but its always very difficult to tell from a photo. The first photo shows trees circa 200m away, the second shows something just off the left of the photo within say, 50 - 100m. The third, trees probably 3 - 400m, the fourth photo, possibly 2 - 300m, and the last, less than 100m?

It does look spacious certainly but if we assume that he landed on the edge of relatively large open space, then perhaps it is fair to say there may not have appeared to be a sufficiently lengthy clear run to get the aircraft down in.

It also seems clear that the ground is farmed and certainly appears to be relatively flat and firm. However, this is from the ground. From 2000ft up, you just don't know and thats the bottom line.

Actually, that's what everyone in this thread is talking about, i.e. pulling the chute anyway when there is clearly a suitable field available. May I respectfully suggest that with your attitude you never take up gliding? I'd hate to see you bailing out of a perfectly controllable glider every time you cannot make it back to home field, just because you think out-landings are unmanageable and must invariably land in disaster. :}

Ciao,

Dg800

Well, having flown in Oz and spent considerable time there 'Out Back', let me tell you that some of those 'hard and dry' fields can hold all sort of nasty surprises.

Now, I wasn't there and have no idea about the amount of local knowledge this pilot had or what that (or any other) field looked like from 2000ft. Frankly, I have no idea what I would have done.

Fact is - he pulled and they all walked away. In my book, a good outcome.

Actually, yours is the only childish and disrespectful post I've seen so far. But hey, whatever floats your boat, right? :ok:

I had a friend who killed himself in what nearly all of us would have said looked like a perfectly suitable field - unfortunately he didn't see the ditch and fence beyond.

You are touching on rather sensitive ground.

The chance of a fatality during EF in a piston single, and associated force landing is 17% (almost 1 in 5) according to the NTSB based on years of data.

This is based upon US pilots only but I think that a chance of a fatality in somewhere like the UK is slightly higher. If pulling the chute lowered that 17% to 16, 15% or even 5% (1 in 20) then it is a no brainer, pull the chute.

Accidents do happen, unfortunately, but to claim that out-landings are generally not survivable without a ballistic recovery system is, at best, just a load of marketing hype (that's synonymous with horse dung, BTW).

Hi, It does look as if that field would be ideal for winch launched glider ops. with maybe over 1000m of cable on the winch !

As for the sequence of events... Loss of oil pressure... Bang... Pull the chute.. All hapening in just a few seconds does not seem creditable.

More likely Bang... Loss of oil pressure... Then find a field.

I just wonder how much of the damage will be paid for by the Insurance; Engine and Airframe?

Dg800

That is exactly why I made the comment I did.

You are claiming they generally are, and I guess you are suggesting some are saying they are not.

That much is obvious and that is why the discussion doesn't justify this forum. As you will see if you read other threads and other discussion it is more complex. It is only from an appreciation of the issues that it is possible to have a sensible debate.

I didn't intend to be "rude", but was simply pointing out that your post rather suggests you haven't grasped the issues.

I know you will probably tell me you have .. .. .. but anyway just my ten and six worth, I will leave it to you.

Call me old school, but I still prefer to make decisions based also on current conditions and not just a general statistic. In this case this implies always looking outside and deciding based on what I see. For example, if I'm overflying a forest and can't glide clear, than it's a no brainer that I'll pull the chute. If I'm 100% within gliding range of an active airfield then again it's a no brainer I will perform a forced landing there.
Statistics are all fine and swell but whether the chute reduces the statical occurrence of a fatality from 17 to 10 percent will be of no interest to you if you still end up belonging to that 10 percent. :} You should always do what you think will maximize your chances of survival under the current circumstances and not just go by some statistic.

Yeah, right, I bow to your superior knowledge or whatever...

You do realize you didn't contribute anything to the discussion except to despise what others have posted? IMHO that's worth much less... :ugh:

That is true DG800, and a good point. So faced with this situation, no loss of control, good altitude, within the flight envelope of the parachute, then they probably had a 100% chance of survival by using the chute :}

Anyway I wasn't there, it wasn't my decision to pull or not to pull, I am just glad that these people walked away from this.

What is the vertical G shock when landing under the chute?

Dg800

- one final (and it really is final) comment on some ground we have covered before;

- do you teach - have you experience of how most pilots get on with a "surprise" glide approach with the throttle pulled on say the down wind leg. I know, I know you will say a qualified pilot should do better - but most dont! Fact, I know.

- you mention looking outside and basing it on what you see. You should be surprised what you cant see from 1,000 feet.

So yes perhaps it is to do with superior knowledge, it is to do with flying with other pilots a lot, it is to do with pulling the throttle and seeing how the "average" pilot copes, it is to do with flying with other pilots the first time they land on a perfectly sound farm strip which actually scares the hell out of them the first time, but after the sixth time is second nature, it is to do with all of these things.

Perhaps you have had that experience but you will forgive me saying if you have then your views are the exception from every other instructor I know.

That is why there is nothing "wrong" with your views and very many forced landings turn out just fine, but you dont seem to have taken into account the whole story. Worth thinking about - perhaps.

PeterH

Dont start - pleeease! :)

(but happy to leave the fun and games to you now, it is a bit boring, and I don't really know why I posted, should have known it was a mistake he he).

No parachute system is really 100% reliable, unfortunately... :( There have actually been fatalities because of that, you know.
The fact is, there is an element of chance in both courses of action, so whether one or the other is better in a given situation will always be a matter of opinion. What I have an issue with are generalized statements such as "Always pull the chute, it's the best option", but also "Never pull the chute unless you have no other choice! (inadvertent spin or total loss of control)" is just as bad. :ok:

It was a real Q.

I have no intention of participating in yet another "Cirrus chute" thread.