SR22 Parachute Deployment - Remarkable Video
 

DVIDS - Video - Pilot Safe After Ditching 253 Miles From Maui

HONOLULU – The pilot of a single engine Cirrus SR-22 aircraft that ran out of fuel is safe after ditching his aircraft 253 miles northeast of Maui, Hawaii Sunday.
At approximately 4:44 p.m. the pilot was able to deploy the aircraft’s airframe parachute system and safely exit the aircraft into a life raft.
Watchstanders at the Coast Guard Joint Rescue Coordination Center Honolulu identified the cruise ship Veendam, en route to Lahaina, Maui, and coordinated the pilot’s ditch near their location.
At 5:21 p.m. the crew of the Veendam rescued the pilot. The pilot was reported to be in good condition. The plane was last observed partially submerged.
Weather conditions at the time of the rescue were seas of 9 to 12 feet and winds of 25 to 28 mph.
The Coast Guard HC-130 Hercules airplane from Air Station Barbers Point assisted the pilot during the process of ditching his aircraft and maintained communications throughout the ditching process. The Hercules crew remained on scene until the pilot was safely aboard the Veendam.
The flight originated in Tracy, California and was destined for Kahului Maui.
At 12:30 p.m. the pilot contacted the Hawaii National Guard and reported his aircraft had approximately three hours of fuel remaining and he would be ditching 230 miles north east of Maui.

Very cool video, thanks for the link!

I'm not usually a "Parachute on plane" proponent, but I see value here. It did seem to be a problem that the wind dragged the 'chute after splashdown, and overturned the plane. It probably would have floated upright longer, if it had been possible to jettison the 'chute right away.

But, it worked!

Something odd here. suspected mis-reporting.

Cruise speed 180 knots

Three hours fuel

253 miles from land.

Wind speed 25 to 28 mph.

By those figures he should have made it easily.

According to comments on FB it was a fuel valve problem rather than failure to have enough for flight.

As for the landing there is some definite merit in arriving vertically but that chute drag would have sunk the aircraft quicker if it dragged towards the open door, so it looks like a chute jettison feature is needed after splashdown.

The 20 seconds of steep nose down attitude between parachute deployment and the plane settling into a reasonably level attitude must have been seriously worrying for the pilot. If deployed at a lower level that could easily have resulted in a nose first impact...

My memory was that you didn't break your back in a BRS deployed SR-22 because a good proportion of the landing impact is absorbed by the under-carriage.
Obviously that isn't going to happen on water - so the impact may be harder than when landing on land.
So congrats to the pilot for coming out of it with no injuries!

I'm surprised they were able to travel for 4hrs 15min and still be 35min away from a ship, but then it is a very big ocean!

That's some seriously nice camera work from the operator on board the Herc.

Was a problem on a valve on the ferry tank, the Pilot was in comms with base via a sat phone for a few hours while they structured a plan in conjunction with coast guard and during that time tried to resolve the valve problem.

Unable to fix diverted close to a cruise ship for the chute pull.

The pilot was apparently in the water for 40 minutes before rescue and I guess on a North Atlantic crossing that could be fatal.

A good outcome under the circumstances

It may be harder but the breaking back thing is a bit of a myth, I believe one guy did suffer a broken bone in the Hudson River, was able to swim ashore, and made a complete recovery, most on water since have been completely without injury.

Some seem to float a while, this one went down very quick and shows the importance of getting out damn quick

The question would be whether he would have been better landing into wind and stalling in or pulling the chute?

Ok it worked out but I agree for a long time the aircraft was very nose down descending nose down at a high rate and only levelled fairly late into the descent.

Lucky landing ????

Unusually long time in nose down position, almost 20 seconds compared to normally I believe around 7 or 8 seconds, this is a G5 Model with a higher gross weight and bigger chute than previous Cirrus and may have been over gross weight with additional ferry tanks (but I do not know that and assume had burnt a lot of that fuel) or C&G may have been out.

My personal ditching strategy will be the chute but I know a lot of traditional ditching's are very survivable.

Certainly credit to the operator, but I think you'll find these cameras are extremely automated, with the FLIR doing the tracking, I've used one before in a Police application. But, excellent video!

Here is the text of a press release from The Flight Academy which is the company operating the flight:

QUOTE
The safety of the Cirrus SR22 aircraft was demonstrated again yesterday when our pilot, Lue Morton, successfully deployed the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System over the Pacific Ocean. Mr. Morton was recovered from the ocean without injury.

Mr. Morton elected to deploy the parachute after several hours of unsuccessful troubleshooting of a fuel system malfunction. Although the aircraft had adequate reserves for the flight, and fuel remaining at the time of the parachute deployment, the remaining fuel was unable to reach the engine for unknown reasons.

The pilot was in communication with the Coast Guard, our office, and aircraft mechanics while attempting to resolve the issues.

The US Coast Guard monitored the aircraft as it flew and observed the parachute deployment, touchdown, and Mr. Morton's recovery by the Holland America cruise ship Veendam.

Our heartfelt gratitude goes to the US Coast Guard for their tireless efforts and to the crew of the Veendam for a speedy retrieval of Mr. Morton from the water.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will lead the investigation into the cause of the accident. Further questions should be directed to the NTSB.

END QUOTE

Aircraft deploys parachute for landing
 

Video: Watch: Plane deploys parachute for emergency landing in Hawaii ocean - Telegraph

Never knew there was such a system.

Pace
 

The nose down attitude of the aircraft just after chute deployment is an intended part of the deployment sequence, I am told that this to keep the occupants of the aircraft firmly against the seat harness during the inital declaration.

About ten seconds after full parachute deployment two explosive line cutters fire to put the aircraft in a more normal attitude.

And in a slightly odd coincidence...

Another aircraft - a C172 - ditched off O'ahu only a couple of hours later on the same day :eek:

ASN Aircraft incident 25-JAN-2015 Cessna 172N Skyhawk N422BP

Excellent design thinking. It seems to me that another set of these explosive cutters to cut the parachute harness entirely away after the G of contact with the surface would be a good idea too....

Awesome. This is why I fly the Cirrus. The ballistic parachute is a viable option of flight safety that I won't want to miss.

If I were regularly crossing very large expanses of rough ocean, or totally unlandable terrain in a single engined wheel plane, I would probably share this view. The success of the parachute use in this event is obvious, though I am not convinced that the aircraft could not have been equally successfully ditched, particularly considering the unstable aircraft position immediately following splashdown.

Personally though, after 7000 hours of single engine flying over 40 years, I have never once wished I'd had a parachute at all (even for the times I was required to wear one). I'm quite happy to have saved the cost and weight of an "installed parachute" for all those flights, by choosing to not fly a parachute configured aircraft. I know that there are many pilots who consider the cost and weight of the parachute worth it, and they do not complain about those costs, and good on them. But for the many pilots who struggle with the cost of flying, I don't believe that a parachute adds safety or piece of mind in proportion to it's cost. But that's a personal opinion.

Knowing that the body's "limits" for deceleration are 45G forward, and 15G downward, I would still plan a "fly on" crash, rather than "drop on", as long as I had an open, near horizontal area - water included.

The 4 people in the 172 who ditched on the same day in a similar location are fine. The 172 had no ballistic parachute. Do people really think it was a good idea to use the parachute in this case? I am not convinced.

Rod1