Another Cirrus chute pull (near Lowville, NY)

Unfortunately, the chute destroyed the plane after everyone was out safely. Probably a good idea after a successful deployment with no injuries for the pilot to gather up the chute, ball it up and put a rock on it.....
 
PaulS said:
Unfortunately, the chute destroyed the plane after everyone was out safely. Probably a good idea after a successful deployment with no injuries for the pilot to gather up the chute, ball it up and put a rock on it.....
Click to expand...
Have there been any BRS deployments that did not result in a total loss of the airframe? I don't think that the parachute is there to save the insurance company from a hull claim.
 
iamtheari said:
Have there been any BRS deployments that did not result in a total loss of the airframe? I don't think that the parachute is there to save the insurance company from a hull claim.
Click to expand...

I believe a few have been repaired and flown again, but that seems to be less common outcome for the plane.
 
Hard to say for sure looking at the video and not trying to second guess the pilot too much as we don't know all of the details but that field looks big enough for a landing. Important thing though is that they all walked away from it and I do believe the chute will normally assist in that. Too bad about the plane though but at least it wasn't a nice Cessna or other high wing. I'd really hate to see one of them get destroyed. :D
 
iamtheari said:
Have there been any BRS deployments that did not result in a total loss of the airframe? I don't think that the parachute is there to save the insurance company from a hull claim.
Click to expand...

Yes, my SR22 is a CAPS plane that was repaired. I think it is around 30-40% that get repaired. As with every accident the insurance co or owner do the math on the amount of damage and value of the airplane to decide whether to repair or not. Later model airplanes with higher market values tend to get repaired unless they end up in water or otherwise heavily damaged.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Hard to say for sure looking at the video and not trying to second guess the pilot too much as we don't know all of the details but that field looks big enough for a landing. Important thing though is that they all walked away from it and I do believe the chute will normally assist in that. Too bad about the plane though but at least it wasn't a nice Cessna or other high wing. I'd really hate to see one of them get destroyed. :D
Click to expand...

Why the hell would land a fast moving cirrus in a field mostly covered with snow? Maybe if it had tundra tires. Lol.

There’s no way of knowing what’s under there. In that situation... get best glide, see if you can COMFORTABLY make an airport, if not, I’m pulling by 1500ft AGL if not sooner.

I’d rather be an uninjured pilot with a new plane than a perceived “super pilot”
 
MetalCloud said:
Why the hell would land a fast moving cirrus in a field mostly covered with snow? Maybe if it had tundra tires. Lol.

There’s no way of knowing what’s under there. In that situation... get best glide, see if you can COMFORTABLY make an airport, if not, I’m pulling by 1500ft AGL if not sooner.

I’d rather be an uninjured pilot with a new plane than a perceived “super pilot”
Click to expand...

Well hopefully you'd try to do it in a slow moving Cirrus rather than a fast moving one but I get your point.
 
If done just right, a Cirrus can touch down at about 60kts.

But that’s still 69mph, and represents a lot of energy to dissipate somehow.

Back to a prior point, after the adrenaline rush of surviving a chute pull, the main goal should be to get clear of the aircraft on the upwind side. And it was apparently quite gusty in the area of the pull. Probably best not to be futzing with the chute or shrouds - little to be gained and a lot to lose.
 
Glad to see everyone survived. Never really thought of what happens when the plane hits the ground.
 
Ok. Now I have a thought exercise, mostly for my own edification.

Assuming Eddie's 60 knots to be our landing airspeed if the winds are above a certain level, let's say 20-30 knots, what is best?

Land under canopy and deal with the chute possibly pulling the aircraft around and upside down?

Land into the wind (as we should always try to do) and have a groundspeed of 30 - 40 knots. After all, isn't groundspeed what matters when hitting the ground and objects on the ground? Is airspeed what matters?

At what wind speed will you Cirrus pilots decide landing into the wind is the better choice or do you think the chute is always the better choice?

Does the POH address this?
 
SkyDog58 said:
Ok. Now I have a thought exercise, mostly for my own edification.

Assuming Eddie's 60 knots to be our landing airspeed if the winds are above a certain level, let's say 20-30 knots, what is best?

Land under canopy and deal with the chute possibly pulling the aircraft around and upside down?

Land into the wind (as we should always try to do) and have a groundspeed of 30 - 40 knots. After all, isn't groundspeed what matters when hitting the ground and objects on the ground? Is airspeed what matters?

At what wind speed will you Cirrus pilots decide landing into the wind is the better choice or do you think the chute is always the better choice?

Does the POH address this?
Click to expand...
Treadmill. The ‘thought exercise’ needs a treadmill for a good workout.
 
I believe there is no discretion allowed, you are supposed to use the chute. I have not been to any Cirrus training, but that’s what I understood. Even if wind speed is 60kts.

We can still have our thought exercise though.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
I believe there is no discretion allowed, you are supposed to use the chute.
Click to expand...

Not really.

From the POH, in part...

“The following discussion is meant to guide your thinking about CAPS activation. Cirrus also recommends that pilots discuss CAPS deployment scenarios with instructors as well as fellow pilots through forums such as the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association. In the event of a spin or loss of aircraft control, immediate CAPS activation is required. (See Section 3) In other situations, CAPS activation is at the informed discretion of the pilot in command. The following discussion is intended to be informative, not directive. It is the responsibility of you, the pilot, to determine when and how the CAPS will be used. It is important to understand, however, that numerous fatalities that have occurred in Cirrus aircraft accidents likely could have been avoided if pilots had made the timely decision to deploy CAPS. It is also important to note that CAPS has been activated by pilots at speeds in excess of 180 knots on multiple occasions with successful outcomes. While the best speed to activate CAPS is below 140 knots indicated airspeed, a timely activation is most important for loss of control situations.”
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
I believe there is no discretion allowed, you are supposed to use the chute
Click to expand...
A big part of the transition course is all about using the chute, there course has a lot of first hand testimonials of people pulling it, that's one of the more convincing parts of it.. beyond just a CFI telling you to use it

As far as discretion, I mean, the rule of thumb is that if you are somewhere between mins CAPS height and 2,000 AGL, then pull it automatically. From 2,000 AGL as you get higher in altitude you have some more options to troubleshoot, etc., but even then the advice I heard was that unless you are on top of an airport that you can circle over and glide to a landing, that you should basically just pull it. If you are at 3,000 feet, out of glide range of airports, point the plane towards an open field or clearing and pull the chute

It's actually really nice to know it is there in hard IMC.. if you have some catastrophic failures or issues it's great to know it's there
 
FastEddieB said:
From the POH, in part...

“The following discussion is meant to guide your thinking about CAPS activation. Cirrus also recommends that pilots discuss CAPS deployment scenarios with instructors as well as fellow pilots through forums such as the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association. In the event of a spin or loss of aircraft control, immediate CAPS activation is required. (See Section 3) In other situations, CAPS activation is at the informed discretion of the pilot in command. The following discussion is intended to be informative, not directive. It is the responsibility of you, the pilot, to determine when and how the CAPS will be used. It is important to understand, however, that numerous fatalities that have occurred in Cirrus aircraft accidents likely could have been avoided if pilots had made the timely decision to deploy CAPS. It is also important to note that CAPS has been activated by pilots at speeds in excess of 180 knots on multiple occasions with successful outcomes. While the best speed to activate CAPS is below 140 knots indicated airspeed, a timely activation is most important for loss of control situations.”
Click to expand...

Both me and my CSIP and other Cirrus pilots I've talked to basically interpret that to mean "look, you are the pilot, and it is your call. But this thing will save your life and has been proven to work even outside of its envelope... so go ahead and pull it, people who didn't died"
 
jonnyjetprop said:
How many have died pulling the chute (including innocent folks on the ground)?

How many have died not pulling the chute?

The answers make the decision making progress easier.
Click to expand...

There has been data pulled to deduce the fatality rate while under the chute, there are other factors that can muddy the water like pulling the chute when not within specified parameters. I don't think anyone has died after pulling within the recommendations.
 
What’s the methodology for determining factors such as wind, that may play a role in where you end up once the handle is pulled?

I would imagine in some cases, you would elect to wait until you’re at the lowest required altitude to ensure the chosen LZ is made..no?
 
RudyP said:
Yes, my SR22 is a CAPS plane that was repaired. I think it is around 30-40% that get repaired.
Click to expand...
For comparison's sake, I wonder what percentage of non-BRS off-airport emergency landings are returned to service.
 
Grum.Man said:
Unless I am guaranteed of landing on an airport, or am out of chute pulling parameters, I'm taking the chute every time. Screw the airplane, I want to live another day.
Click to expand...

Cirrus can't land in fields?

As long as the wheels go round and it doesn't hit anything, plane doesn't know the difference between a golf course and a grass runway.

Also the forget the plane thing is silly, everyone knows the better condition the box is in, the better condition the contents are in.


asicer said:
For comparison's sake, I wonder what percentage of non-BRS off-airport emergency landings are returned to service.
Click to expand...

Not a cirrus, but my off field landing in a dry riverbed didn't even end up scratching the paint.
 
The other thing is we have no data on how Many would have survived if they didn’t pull the shoot

I also think you’d have a hard time explaining to an insurance company why you didn’t do what the book says and pull the chute. They could refuse coverage all together in that instance

Point is, I don’t have a cirrus. But if I did. And I was within chute parameters and could not make a runway in an emergency where the plane can’t fly, I’m pulling the chute. This is part of what you’re paying for in that plane

Live to fly another day. And that story is just as dam good as landing it on a field

The one instance that scares me of pulling the chute is over water if it comes down on top of the plane, can you still open the doors???
 
JustinD said:
I also think you’d have a hard time explaining to an insurance company why you didn’t do what the book says and pull the chute.
Click to expand...

Please read my prior post quoting the POH. That's not "what the book says".

They could refuse coverage all together in that instance.
Click to expand...

No, they couldn't.
 
JustinD said:
The other thing is we have no data on how Many would have survived if they didn’t pull the shoot

I also think you’d have a hard time explaining to an insurance company why you didn’t do what the book says and pull the chute. They could refuse coverage all together in that instance

Point is, I don’t have a cirrus. But if I did. And I was within chute parameters and could not make a runway in an emergency where the plane can’t fly, I’m pulling the chute. This is part of what you’re paying for in that plane

Live to fly another day. And that story is just as dam good as landing it on a field

The one instance that scares me of pulling the chute is over water if it comes down on top of the plane, can you still open the doors???
Click to expand...

In a water landing you should have the doors open prior to touching the drink. The only way I could see the chute being s problem is if there was absolutely no wind and the plane landed straight down. Not probable I would think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
James331 said:
Cirrus can't land in fields?

As long as the wheels go round and it doesn't hit anything, plane doesn't know the difference between a golf course and a grass runway.

Also the forget the plane thing is silly, everyone knows the better condition the box is in, the better condition the contents are in.




Not a cirrus, but my off field landing in a dry riverbed didn't even end up scratching the paint.
Click to expand...

So you think you can tell from 2k agl if a field has zero potholes, wire fences, if it's firm or soft, if the grass is short or tall? A soybean field that is 2' tall looks flat and smooth from 2k feet agl when you should be making the decision to pull or not. You may survive landing in a field and flipping on your back but it will hurt more than coming down under canopy.
 
Grum.Man said:
So you think you can tell from 2k agl if a field has zero potholes, wire fences, if it's firm or soft, if the grass is short or tall? A soybean field that is 2' tall looks flat and smooth from 2k feet agl when you should be making the decision to pull or not. You may survive landing in a field and flipping on your back but it will hurt more than coming down under canopy.
Click to expand...

It all depends.
 
Peter Anderson said:
In a water landing you should have the doors open prior to touching the drink. The only way I could see the chute being s problem is if there was absolutely no wind and the plane landed straight down. Not probable I would think.
Click to expand...

i knew as soon as i posted that someone was going to say the doors should be cracked anyway, haha. Well yes it would need to be basically zero wind, but even if the doors were cracked and the chute came down on top of the plane would you be able to actually push the doors open enough to get out without being stuck?
 
JustinD said:
i knew as soon as i posted that someone was going to say the doors should be cracked anyway, haha. Well yes it would need to be basically zero wind, but even if the doors were cracked and the chute came down on top of the plane would you be able to actually push the doors open enough to get out without being stuck?
Click to expand...
Chances are, without some water evacuation training, you would not be able too.

Most folks don’t have the endurance that they need to escape an airplane that is submerged. Add a parachute canopy on top of it and the window gets even narrower.

I watched an interesting video on the Tube about the untrained escaping a water landing, and the results were quite astounding. I’ll have to try and find it again.
 
If the wind flips the plane over on landing, there's an egress hammer to smash the windows out.

If in that situation I don't give a rat's ass about saving the plane. Doesn't matter if it's a 40kt head wind and a golf course under me. If I can't comfortably make a runway, I'm pulling, walking away, doing some paperwork, and going plane shopping.
 
MetalCloud said:
If the wind flips the plane over on landing, there's an egress hammer to smash the windows out.

If in that situation I don't give a rat's ass about saving the plane. Doesn't matter if it's a 40kt head wind and a golf course under me. If I can't comfortably make a runway, I'm pulling, walking away, doing some paperwork, and going plane shopping.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't your POA name be plasticcloud?
 
Being on fire would be a tough call. You would get down faster flying but the fire would be pushed toward the cockpit. If you became incapacitated during the decent from smoke of flames you will likely not survive the landing. On the other hand, the fire could spread on the somewhat lengthy decent or potentially burn though the chute cords.
 
PaulS said:
Shouldn't your POA name be plasticcloud?
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. That other Mooney fanboy delta bravo thought it was funny too and it's just dumb and uneducated. The "metal" in my username has nothing to do with the plane I fly.

Also, way to stay on topic.
 
Grum.Man said:
Being on fire would be a tough call. You would get down faster flying...
Click to expand...

I don’t think that’s a given.

Under CAPS the descent is near vertical at 1,700 fpm.

Imagine noticing a fire at 3,400’. Pull CAPS and you’ll be stationary on the ground in roughly 2 minutes.

Diving at the ground at a very high velocity and high vertical speed might get you close to the ground sooner, but with a LOT of speed needing to be bled off to get to a reasonable landing speed. And then there’s the time the landing takes, along with getting stopped. All with the cockpit possibly filling with smoke.

Sure, the calculations would be different at a higher altitude. But it’s not automatically quicker to fly rather than pull.
 
Ryanb said:
I would imagine in some cases, you would elect to wait until you’re at the lowest required altitude to ensure the chosen LZ is made..no?
Click to expand...
Maybe not lowest.. but if you are over inhospitable terrain and at 6K agl, and you can get to some corn fields, etc., at still be at 3K agl.. then yeah, pull the chute over the corn fields vs the lake, etc.

JustinD said:
I also think you’d have a hard time explaining to an insurance company why you didn’t do what the book says and pull the chute.
Click to expand...
FastEddieB said:
That's not "what the book says".
Click to expand...
Per the POH quoted the book says "...In other [non spin/loss of control] situations, CAPS activation is at the informed discretion of the pilot in command." the operative word there being "informed discretion".. I think that short of the plane being on fire, etc., you would have a hard time justifying that your best, most informed course of action was not to pull the chute.

I never really understood the whole anti parachute thing. We all think we're awesome pilots, but to me it's like saying that real sailors don't need a life boat or life jackets, because worse case scenario you can swim.. "I guarantee I can glide down safely and stay coordinated, I don't need no stinkin chute!" ... okay
 
FastEddieB said:
I don’t think that’s a given.

Under CAPS the descent is near vertical at 1,700 fpm.

Imagine noticing a fire at 3,400’. Pull CAPS and you’ll be stationary on the ground in roughly 2 minutes.

Diving at the ground at a very high velocity and high vertical speed might get you close to the ground sooner, but with a LOT of speed needing to be bled off to get to a reasonable landing speed. And then there’s the time the landing takes, along with getting stopped. All with the cockpit possibly filling with smoke.

Sure, the calculations would be different at a higher altitude. But it’s not automatically quicker to fly rather than pull.
Click to expand...
haha! we were thinking the same thing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top