Another Cirrus down, 6-18-2016

Wow all of that smooth field to land on and they pull the chute.... sheesh.
 
1) Expansive discussion on this in progress on COPA. Lots of photos of the chute pull in progress.

2) Stephen Coontz not involved.

3) Terrain a lot gnarlier than the photos make it appear.

4) The parachute was pulled at less than 1,000' and did not perform perfectly, leading to a hard, nose-down impact.
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
1) Expansive discussion on this in progress on COPA. Lots of photos of it in progress.

2) Stephen Coontz not involved.

3) Terrain a lot gnarlier than the photos make it appear.

4) The parachute was pulled at less than 1,000' and did not perform perfectly, leading to a hard, nose-down impact.
Click to expand...

Also on my FB. The Cirri parachute "faithful" are all ****y that I said that terrain out there is landable. Great stories about barbed wire "crisscrossing" the fields out there and what-not. Of course living in that exact area, I know for a fact nobody "crisscrosses" barbed wire out there and it doesn't show up in any of the copious photos shot by his wingman...

The ground is rock hard out there and bumpy as hell because of the clumps of prairie grass and vegetation, but we've seen multiple off airport landings on it over the years. You couldn't pick any better place to have to put a single down around here, really.

Wingman: One person has stated it was a formation flight, which led me to ask...

Formation flight, Cirrus SR-20, on a 9000'+ DA day at the surface, below 1000 AGL, with passengers on board, and then pull the chute at 400' AGL?

There's supposedly ground track and altitude data at COPA behind the member paywall, and I'd love to see it, but there's big hints of some questionable ADM long before the engine quit. The flight profile was pretty risky to begin with.

The engine failure happened, which it always can when doing low level formation flights on a freaking hot day at high altitude. Wasn't much choice. Land it and beat the hell out of it on rough ground or pull the 'chute outside of parameters and cross fingers. Either way, they didn't leave themselves any "outs".

No holier than thou here either. I've made that same choice out there to be 1000' AGL instead of climbing up, especially eastbound when you know the terrain will slowly drop away in cruise. But you're always looking for where you'll put it down until you get a bit of height AGL.

I'd want 2000' AGL or more to do formation out there. 1000' isn't enough time to figure out where you're going WHEN the engine quits. Not IF it quits. WHEN. A couple more miles of options out the window too.
 
denverpilot said:
Also on my FB. The Cirri parachute "faithful" are all ****y that I said that terrain out there is landable. Great stories about barbed wire "crisscrossing" the fields out there and what-not. Of course living in that exact area, I know for a fact nobody "crisscrosses" barbed wire out there and it doesn't show up in any of the copious photos shot by his wingman...

The ground is rock hard out there and bumpy as hell because of the clumps of prairie grass and vegetation, but we've seen multiple off airport landings on it over the years. You couldn't pick any better place to have to put a single down around here, really.

Wingman: One person has stated it was a formation flight, which led me to ask...

Formation flight, Cirrus SR-20, on a 9000'+ DA day at the surface, below 1000 AGL, with passengers on board, and then pull the chute at 400' AGL?

There's supposedly ground track and altitude data at COPA behind the member paywall, and I'd love to see it, but there's big hints of some questionable ADM long before the engine quit. The flight profile was pretty risky to begin with.

The engine failure happened, which it always can when doing low level formation flights on a freaking hot day at high altitude. Wasn't much choice. Land it and beat the hell out of it on rough ground or pull the 'chute outside of parameters and cross fingers. Either way, they didn't leave themselves any "outs".

No holier than thou here either. I've made that same choice out there to be 1000' AGL instead of climbing up, especially eastbound when you know the terrain will slowly drop away in cruise. But you're always looking for where you'll put it down until you get a bit of height AGL.

I'd want 2000' AGL or more to do formation out there. 1000' isn't enough time to figure out where you're going WHEN the engine quits. Not IF it quits. WHEN. A couple more miles of options out the window too.
Click to expand...

Label me ignorant, and then please explain why formation flight mandates, guarantees, and requires an engine failure. "Not IF it quits. WHEN."
 
FlySince9 said:
Bad enough its once again a Cirrus.. Really getting tiresome if it was a fuel issue... :confused:
Click to expand...

Word is that he lost oil pressure first. So probably not fuel. That was actually the question I posed on my FB post about it, is that engine just being flogged too hard in the SR-20. Oil pressure loss seems to be a recurring theme. It turned into the usual cacaphony of parachute vs non debate instead.

Only one person responded that the engine is derated by 10 HP in the Cirrus configuration. Oooh. 10 HP. Haha. Hell, we lose more than that just flying anything up here in summer.

That engine had to be HOT lugging three humans around plus whatever fuel was on board, down low doing formation work on a 9000'+ DA day.

I sure hope it wasn't fuel. But I don't think so, from what's leaked out of COPA.
 
FastEddieB said:
1) Expansive discussion on this in progress on COPA. Lots of photos of the chute pull in progress.

2) Stephen Coontz not involved.

3) Terrain a lot gnarlier than the photos make it appear.

4) The parachute was pulled at less than 1,000' and did not perform perfectly, leading to a hard, nose-down impact.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification because 1) the terrain looked smooth in the pics and 2) I was wondering if those kinds of injuries were typical in a chute deployment.
 
Lachlan said:
Label me ignorant, and then please explain why formation flight mandates, guarantees, and requires an engine failure. "Not IF it quits. WHEN."
Click to expand...

ALL single engine flight does.

Formation flight is going to take a significant portion of your attention away from things, especially if you're not the lead aircraft.

Lead shouldn't put wingmen in the situation where they only have 1000' to find a spot and land it WHEN their wingman's engine quits. Wing shouldn't accept that as the plan for the flight either. Not carrying passengers, especially.

Nobody has leaked whether or not it was just "loose formation"/flight of two type stuff, or serious formation though.

But formation should be briefed, and if someone said "1000 AGL" out there in any briefing I'm in, I'd be asking for 2000' AGL -- no reason not to, out there.

Maybe they were so heavy they were still in the climb. Dunno. (Shrug.) Seems like they could have been higher coming out of any of the COS area airports by the time they got out that far east.

I'll admit to a bias here also. Early in my flying two well known pilots took their airplane "out there on the plains" and looped it. Straight into the ground on a hot day. There's a bit of a siren call to Denver metro area pilots to go do stupid stuff over the plains, since they feel free to choose to go low level away from the front range airspace and "rules". It's been an underlying factor in a few fatals over the last 20 years that isn't mentioned much, since it's one of those impossible to prove things.

But there's not much reason to be low out there. Doing air work, formation flights, aerobatics, whatever. Give yourself some time to look around and there's all sorts of stuff to land on/in out there. It's the high desert until you go downhill significantly toward Kansas or Nebraska. 3000' AGL is required out there to do air work in the twin and on checkrides... And it has a lot more options than a single...

We've all done "not always the most conservative option" things out there. I'm just saying it sometimes leads to realizing low level out there isn't the "best" plan overall. You have to be on your game WHEN the engine quits at 1000' AGL out there. Not much time to deal with it. 2000'-3000' AGL gives you another few minutes to figure out where you're going.

A favorite of CFIs around here is to go do air work out there at 2000-3000' AGL and then pull your engine directly over one of the private ranch strips in good condition out there. About 50% of students line up on a pasture instead, CFI friends tell me. Heh. That one is a way to point out a lack of SA when maneuvering. Really was a tough one when we all used paper charts. A moving map makes that little "test" a lot easier. I've gone out and taken a closer look at all of the ranch strips south of my house -- out of about five charted, three are in great shape. One even has a windsock and is obviously used regularly by the owner.
 
denverpilot said:
"crisscrosses" barbed wire out there and it doesn't show up in any of the copious photos shot by his wingman...

The ground is rock hard out there and bumpy as hell because of the clumps of prairie grass and vegetation, but we've seen multiple off airport landings on it over the years. You couldn't pick any better place to have to put a single down around here, really.
Click to expand...

He absolutely did the right thing. Much better to dissipate energy at 1700fpm downward than 80MPH forward. There was a fence. Check the photo.

In the end, 3 occupants live to fly another day. I would have done exactly the same thing.

fence.jpg
 
Lachlan said:
That glut of words you just spat out still tells me zero about why formation flying will cause 100% engine failure.
Click to expand...

Could be he's expanding on the fact that 100% of engine failures are preceded by engine starts. Aren't we always planning our response to emergencies that (thankfully) don't always occur? I think the extra AGL advice is sound.
 
rolivi said:
Could be he's expanding on the fact that 100% of engine failures are preceded by engine starts. Aren't we always planning our response to emergencies that (thankfully) don't always occur? I think the extra AGL advice is sound.
Click to expand...

Could be, except that's not what he said. He very specifically addressed formation flying and engine failure. "I'd want 2000' AGL or more to do formation out there. 1000' isn't enough time to figure out where you're going WHEN the engine quits. Not IF it quits. WHEN." I thought perhaps formation flying over stresses a power plant fir some reason, like constant speed adjustments, rapid climbs, descents which over cool hot cylinder heads, etc, which seem to cause an excessively high rate of engine failures. That's what I thought he was saying.
 
Bush Pilot said:
He absolutely did the right thing. Much better to dissipate energy at 1700fpm downward than 80MPH forward.

View attachment 46064
Click to expand...
False. Completely false. 99% of the energy you try to "dissipate" downwards is going into you the human because there is no room to dissipate it. 80mph forward speed will be dissipated MUCH more slowly because there isn't an earth in your way. Even if the plane flips or tumbles or ends up a mess that speed will dissipate slower. Also your body can take many more times the frontal G's and be survivable than vertical G's along the spinal cord. I'd take 80mph forward ANY day of the week.

Downwards you have the 2' distance of the landing gear and your seat. Forward you have 5280' to tumble and slow down.
 
So you'd rather flip it at speed than come down on an aluminum honeycomb structure and gear assembly engineered and proven (with 100% success) to dissipate energy and save the occupant? Are you familiar with crumple zones in cars? Did you know that a Cirrus transmits less energy to the occupant when impacting land than water? Why do you suppose that is, Mr. Physics?
 
PNWannabe said:
So you'd rather flip it at speed than come down on an aluminum honeycomb structure and gear assembly engineered and proven (with 100% success) to dissipate energy and save the occupant? Are you familiar with crumple zones in cars? Did you know that a Cirrus transmits less energy to the occupant when impacting land than water? Why do you suppose that is, Mr. Physics?
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is that the crumple zone is a finite distance. The place that Cirrus could have landed it would have had a much longer distance to dissipate that energy.

That's 100% success when the 'chute deploys all the way not a partial deployment like this case. And the crumple zone isn't quite as helpful if the 'chute doesn't deploy all the way.

I agree in trees or anything dense that coming down vertically would be better (on something engineered) but in the open plains... not so much.

If you want to use the car analogy its the choice of crashing into a solid object and just having your crumple zone or a rollover crash where you go tumbling off into the plains.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
What I'm saying is that the crumple zone is a finite distance. The place that Cirrus could have landed it would have had a much longer distance to dissipate that energy.

That's 100% success when the 'chute deploys all the way not a partial deployment like this case. And the crumple zone isn't quite as helpful if the 'chute doesn't deploy all the way.

I agree in trees or anything dense that coming down vertically would be better (on something engineered) but in the open plains... not so much.

If you want to use the car analogy its the choice of crashing into a solid object and just having your crumple zone or a rollover crash where you go tumbling off into the plains.
Click to expand...

True. And that wire fence? No big deal. Cattle will blow fences all the time and live through it. Airplane? No problem.
 
denverpilot said:
Also on my FB. The Cirri parachute "faithful" are all ****y that I said that terrain out there is landable. Great stories about barbed wire "crisscrossing" the fields out there and what-not. Of course living in that exact area, I know for a fact nobody "crisscrosses" barbed wire out there and it doesn't show up in any of the copious photos shot by his wingman...

The ground is rock hard out there and bumpy as hell because of the clumps of prairie grass and vegetation, but we've seen multiple off airport landings on it over the years. You couldn't pick any better place to have to put a single down around here, really.

Wingman: One person has stated it was a formation flight, which led me to ask...

Formation flight, Cirrus SR-20, on a 9000'+ DA day at the surface, below 1000 AGL, with passengers on board, and then pull the chute at 400' AGL?

There's supposedly ground track and altitude data at COPA behind the member paywall, and I'd love to see it, but there's big hints of some questionable ADM long before the engine quit. The flight profile was pretty risky to begin with.

The engine failure happened, which it always can when doing low level formation flights on a freaking hot day at high altitude. Wasn't much choice. Land it and beat the hell out of it on rough ground or pull the 'chute outside of parameters and cross fingers. Either way, they didn't leave themselves any "outs".

No holier than thou here either. I've made that same choice out there to be 1000' AGL instead of climbing up, especially eastbound when you know the terrain will slowly drop away in cruise. But you're always looking for where you'll put it down until you get a bit of height AGL.

I'd want 2000' AGL or more to do formation out there. 1000' isn't enough time to figure out where you're going WHEN the engine quits. Not IF it quits. WHEN. A couple more miles of options out the window too.
Click to expand...

While I won't argue chute vs. off-field landing, isn't the net result about the same. Landing on gnarly prairie with clumps and rocks you're probably going to have issues with the gear and a prop strike. From an insurance standpoint isn't that about the same as a chute pull in terms of damage to the aircraft? Either you salvage the engine or you salvage the airframe, either way, it's a big write-off.
 
labbadabba said:
While I won't argue chute vs. off-field landing, isn't the net result about the same. Landing on gnarly prairie with clumps and rocks you're probably going to have issues with the gear and a prop strike. From an insurance standpoint isn't that about the same as a chute pull in terms of damage to the aircraft? Either you salvage the engine or you salvage the airframe, either way, it's a big write-off.
Click to expand...

It's a luck of the draw kind of deal. Plenty of prairie landings with zero airframe damage out here.
 
Are there no roads out there?? Sounds like he'd been dealing with the power issue long enough to notify the tower and start working his way back towards the airport. Why not grab the first country road and set it down before the complete failure? May have come out unscathed, either people or aircraft.
 
LDJones said:
Are there no roads out there?? Sounds like he'd been dealing with the power issue long enough to notify the tower and start working his way back towards the airport. Why not grab the first country road and set it down before the complete failure? May have come out unscathed, either people or aircraft.
Click to expand...

Tons of nice straight dirt roads around. Usually within gliding distsnce, unless you're <1,000' agl.
 
Well look, it was a Cirrus - so there's absolutely no way they could have done anything right. If they'd chosen to grind of the gear in the numerous prairie dog holes and cattle/snow fences and flip over then they'd have been lambasted for NOT using the chute. If you're in a Cirrus and the engine quits you just have to accept you'll be judged as an idiot for eternity - right ?
 
Bush Pilot said:
He absolutely did the right thing. Much better to dissipate energy at 1700fpm downward than 80MPH forward. There was a fence. Check the photo.

In the end, 3 occupants live to fly another day. I would have done exactly the same thing.

View attachment 46064
Click to expand...

Never doubted there were fences. Note the miles of prairie on either side of it. The statement I made was that the Cirri "faithful" came out in droves on my FB post and claimed there were "crisscrossing" fences and all sorts of problems with the field, which simply isn't true out here. But hey, I live surrounded by three ranches nearly identical to the place the aircraft went down and drive the county road past them every day, so what would I know about it? Haha. Internet Warriors. Yay.

Also never claimed he did anything wrong other than possibly choose to do low level formation flight with pax.

The commentary once again heads back to the chute pull, vs the real reason I posted in the first place... How many more "losses of oil pressure" are we going to see on SR-20s and why? These aren't 30 year old neglected engines.

Even Byran has seen a rather expensive repair to an engine that seemed rather well kept.

Loren, roads are plentiful but almost all have power lines down one side and a line that crosses at each farmhouse that's on the "wrong" side of the road. Generally CFIs teach they're not the best option. If one feels confident that one can see and avoid them, landings on them, have definitely been done out here.

Pull the chute out of spec, or land the thing, if everyone walks away, I don't care. I'm more interested why SR-20s keep tossing engines.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
False. Completely false. 99% of the energy you try to "dissipate" downwards is going into you the human because there is no room to dissipate it. 80mph forward speed will be dissipated MUCH more slowly because there isn't an earth in your way.
Click to expand...

That's what the Cirrus is designed around. I fly a Husky and a Cirrus. When I'm in the Cirrus and if and when I have an engine failure, unless I'm over a 8000' runway, I'm pulling the chute. The data is on my side.

There is seldom any terrain, anywhere short of the salt flats that I would wan to be forced down in with my Cirrus. The landing speed is too high, the wheels are too small. I would rather count on what the airplane was designed for. I've seen a lot more deaths from forced landings than I have under canopy.
 
denverpilot said:
Also on my FB. The Cirri parachute "faithful" are all ****y that I said that terrain out there is landable. Great stories about barbed wire "crisscrossing" the fields out there and what-not. Of course living in that exact area, I know for a fact nobody "crisscrosses" barbed wire out there and it doesn't show up in any of the copious photos shot by his wingman...

The ground is rock hard out there and bumpy as hell because of the clumps of prairie grass and vegetation, but we've seen multiple off airport landings on it over the years. You couldn't pick any better place to have to put a single down around here, really.

Wingman: One person has stated it was a formation flight, which led me to ask...

Formation flight, Cirrus SR-20, on a 9000'+ DA day at the surface, below 1000 AGL, with passengers on board, and then pull the chute at 400' AGL?
Click to expand...

It was an SR-22 with a Turbo
 
Bush Pilot said:
That's what the Cirrus is designed around. I fly a Husky and a Cirrus. When I'm in the Cirrus and if and when I have an engine failure, unless I'm over a 8000' runway, I'm pulling the chute. The data is on my side.

There is seldom any terrain, anywhere short of the salt flats that I would wan to be forced down in with my Cirrus. The landing speed is too high, the wheels are too small. I would rather count on what the airplane was designed for. I've seen a lot more deaths from forced landings than I have under canopy.
Click to expand...
Right and I agree, I'm talking about the fact that this Cirrus was below the prescribed 1000' altitude so it was going to come in hot.
 
tuwood said:
You should see my record of trying to dead stick into runways with my instructor. My minimum may be 10,000' lol
Click to expand...
Might be worth practicing power off 180s.

It's actually rather fun.

Then, when you've got that down, pull power at higher altitude over an airport and insist on a landing.
 
tuwood said:
You should see my record of trying to dead stick into runways with my instructor. My minimum may be 10,000' lol
Click to expand...

My suggestion is to keep practicing until making it onto a 3,000' runway is just another maneuver for you.

I see the "lol" but that level of skill - or lack thereof - is not really something to joke about.
 
FastEddieB said:
My suggestion is to keep practicing until making it onto a 3,000' runway is just another maneuver for you.

I see the "lol" but that level of skill - or lack thereof - is not really something to joke about.
Click to expand...

You're right, it's not really something to joke about and obviously I was exaggerating a bit.
On a serious note I do "OK" when it comes to judging power off landings, but I'm not very confident in my abilities. Simulated engine out within gliding distance I'd say I'm probably 80% successful to the runway. From the pattern with power off 180's I'm much better, but still not 100% with the various wind directions/speeds.
 
tuwood said:
You're right, it's not really something to joke about and obviously I was exaggerating a bit.
On a serious note I do "OK" when it comes to judging power off landings, but I'm not very confident in my abilities. Simulated engine out within gliding distance I'd say I'm probably 80% successful to the runway. From the pattern with power off 180's I'm much better, but still not 100% with the various wind directions/speeds.
Click to expand...

Understood.

My CFI and CSIP and medical are all expired, but any time you'd like to make it down to the beautiful N GA/E TN mountains, I'd be happy to work with you if you like. As a "safety pilot"/"observer", naturally!
 
PNWannabe said:
Did you know that a Cirrus transmits less energy to the occupant when impacting land than water? Why do you suppose that is, Mr. Physics?
Click to expand...
Why do I suppose that? I don't suppose it, this guy Newton does. Are you going to try to debate physics with me?

It's because the landing gear (which should absorb impact in ANY plane, not just Cirrus) doesn't have a chance to work because the water gives way to something with that much pressure behind it. Pressure = Force/Area. When the rest of the plane (especially on a low wing) hits the water Area gets very large so pressure gets very small which means the water is able to stop you.... quickly. If the water doesn't get out of the way quickly, which it doesnt because of it's cohesion and density, the impact will transmit very little energy to the water (non-compressible fluid) and the rest of it to the occupant... because the crumple zone is small... proving my earlier point.

Not sure what you were trying to get out of that?
 
Reading this thread it just occurs to me that seemingly half say land it for X y and z reasons and half say pull the chute.

Meanwhile this person had seconds or minutes to make a decision, while flying a deadstick, once it was clear the field was not reachable, and not knowing what field conditions lay below.

While I know precious little about cirrus, just seems to me, given difficult conditions, pax, unknown field, and seconds to run through all the detailed considerations made here (including nonlinear finite element analysis) ... I would not be surprised if nearly all of us would take the known option and pull the chute.

Ok, have at me...
 
PaulMKE said:
Reading this thread it just occurs to me that seemingly half say land it for X y and z reasons and half say pull the chute.

Meanwhile this person had seconds or minutes to make a decision, while flying a deadstick, once it was clear the field was not reachable, and not knowing what field conditions lay below.

While I know precious little about cirrus, just seems to me, given difficult conditions, pax, unknown field, and seconds to run through all the detailed considerations made here (including nonlinear finite element analysis) ... I would not be surprised if nearly all of us would take the known option and pull the chute.

Ok, have at me...
Click to expand...

I fly a Cirrus and here's my thought process. When CAPS is deployed within it's performance envelope there has never been a fatality in the airplane or on the ground. That's a 100% survival rate.
With off airport landing attempts and attempts to make a runway the statistics are much worse not only in Cirrus, but in GA overall. Even if it's 90% with an off airport landing I'm still taking the chute down because I owe it to myself and my family to give us the highest chance of survival.

I feel that many like to puff up and call Cirrus pilots bad pilots, but in my opinion a bad pilot is the one who would take the path towards a statistically lower chance of survival.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top