I'm not saying that the chute is a bad thing - I wish I had one in the airplanes I fly, but not teaching basic airmanship will lead to fatalities eventually.
Another Day, Another Cirrus Parachute Save
- Thread starter VWGhiaBob
- Start date
Who said anything about not teaching basic airmanship? Pretty sure basic airmanship and engine out simulated landings are part of the PTS.
I imagine Cirrus would be very interested to know if a CSIP is teaching his students not to pull the chute above 500 ft AGL after engine failure or loss of control.
He teaches to pull, but he also teaches how to actually land the airplane. You know, like basic things every pilot should know that is somehow lost on Cirrus drivers.
There has only been 1 chute failure that I know of, and thankfully the pilot was able to get it down safely (even though he pulled for a dumbass reason)
Datadriver
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 985
- Display Name
Display name:
Datadriver
"throws" is probably too hard. I've been through the Cirrus training and most of the training was Cirrus specific stuff like autopilot and Avidyne. Almost none of it would have carried over to a different aircraft, and much was mandated by insurance companies who were being zinged for every chute deployment.
That was 2006 - might have changed since then.
Datadriver
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 985
- Display Name
Display name:
Datadriver
This is an excellent point. We'll never know because the chute was onboard. Certainly some percentage of these chute deployments are in fact unnecessary.
Having said that if I was over a wooded area of course I would prefer a chute on board.
Bonchie
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,505
- Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
I think people need to stop thinking of pulls as necessary or not, as if it's not a legitimate choice compared to other ways of getting a plane down.
If an engine out has occurred why is the choice of dead sticking it anymore legitimate then a chute pull? Unless it's an open field you are going to tear the plane up anyway. One choice has a significantly better injury/survival rate as well.
I get the "rich stupid doctor" arguments. But as a tool on it's own merits there's nothing wrong with the chute itself.
As for airmanship, at least today, it'd be nearly impossible to get through PPL and IFR training without having an ability to engine out land.
If an engine out has occurred why is the choice of dead sticking it anymore legitimate then a chute pull? Unless it's an open field you are going to tear the plane up anyway. One choice has a significantly better injury/survival rate as well.
I get the "rich stupid doctor" arguments. But as a tool on it's own merits there's nothing wrong with the chute itself.
As for airmanship, at least today, it'd be nearly impossible to get through PPL and IFR training without having an ability to engine out land.
Last edited:
mtuomi
En-Route
Ok what about over a field of nicely cut grass. Pull the chute no matter what?
Bonchie
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,505
- Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
Who cares? You do whatever gives you the highest survival rate. You don't get a special merit badge for dead sticking into a field.
If someone wants to pull the chute then I see no issues with that. I'd try to put it down personally in that case but if someone doesn't want the risk, then either will get you on the ground.
Traket92X
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 161
- Display Name
Display name:
Traket
Nicely cut grass reveals nothing about the rocks and stumps below. I live in a place with lots of open fields. One of the first things we learning during training is don't aim for the grassy fields during an engine out if there are other options. The CRP land tends to have nasty rocks and stumps.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,542
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
A CT recently landed in a perfect soccer field.
Then flipped when it hit a hidden irregularity.
The cockpit held and I don't think they were injured. Might not have been so lucky in a plane with a canopy - like mine.
Though now that I think of it, I think it was mentioned before in this thread. Just going around in circles now, I guess.
Yep, would pull (assuming sufficient altitude would go through checklist to try and restart engine). Again, the choice is between 100% survival rate and some lesser percentage survival rate. Lots of nose flips and fatalities even in open fields in all sorts of planes with otherwise good engine out landings. Unless I can without a doubt make the runway, I'd pull. And that's what Cirrus teaches too. If you have insurance, why wouldn't you pull? For your pride? That's a stupid reason to potentially die.
Engine failures actually have pretty good survival rates provided the pilot doesn't stall it out when they're still up high.
I know, for a fact, that if I had a nice grassy field in front of me and lost my engine both me, and my passengers would walk away. The plane would also most likely be useable again. All I need is about 300' of mostly smooth tundra and I'm good to go, but the planes I fly also have bigger wheels.
I know, for a fact, that if I had a nice grassy field in front of me and lost my engine both me, and my passengers would walk away. The plane would also most likely be useable again. All I need is about 300' of mostly smooth tundra and I'm good to go, but the planes I fly also have bigger wheels.
Ya, the cirrus is not a bush plane. Cirrus was also designed to absorb the impact of the BRS, etc. I'm confident in my short and soft field abilities and grass strip abilities, and I'd still pull the chute if I was in a Cirrus. In most off airport landings in my mooney (other than a road or nice flat grass field) I'd probably land gear up, prop strike and all.
jmp470
Line Up and Wait
Here's the really nice thing about the Parachute, you can call her up and ask her! That is not always the case in an off field landing!
Dr. O
Pattern Altitude
hmmm. I have lost respect for a couple of posters on here. Loudmouth idiots basically.
And why so emotional about the BRS? It is just a tool.
If you are going down and you don't want to use the BRS, then don't. No skin off my nose.
Your attitude is like claiming that real pilots don't do a preflight check, only wimps. Or that only wimps look at the instruments on the panel because a real pilot like you doesn't need anything.
GA is becoming safer.
http://www.aviationstatistics.org/statistics/fatal-accidents-per-year/
But it could be a lot better. We are still killing ourselves at a rate of just slightly less than 2 people every third day.
It is likely that lady pulled the chute and maybe lowered the death count for this year by one or two. My hat is off to her. Women seem not to get as confused by their ego as men do.
The Cirrus seems to be a really nice airplane. I will never own one (and if I hit the lottery it will be a King Air) but I sure wouldn't kick one out of bed if she wanted to stay for the weekend.
There is one issue that I'm mulling over in my mind about the Cirrus. Most of them are essentially brand new airplanes (compared to the clapped out 57 year old piece of junk I fly) On the surface there seems to be an inordinate rate of mechanical failure that results in chute deployment or crashes. (probably not statistically though)
I'm wondering if that (perceived?) high rate of failure is an engineering issue with the machine or is driven more by the type of person that becomes a Cirrus owner/pilot.
We know that the early Malibu's high rate of accident was directly due to an engine that was being flogged within an inch of it's life - coupled with an owner base that had much more money than skill. A double whammy - harkening back to the V-Tail era..
I have not taken the time to delve into the statistics of the Cirrus but it's typical owner seems to be an analogue of the Fork Tailed Doctor Killer and it's later replacement the Malibu. The jury is still out on the Cirrus but the pattern does appear to be repeating. Still, the high reported rate of failure in these machines is puzzling.
And why so emotional about the BRS? It is just a tool.
If you are going down and you don't want to use the BRS, then don't. No skin off my nose.
Your attitude is like claiming that real pilots don't do a preflight check, only wimps. Or that only wimps look at the instruments on the panel because a real pilot like you doesn't need anything.
GA is becoming safer.
http://www.aviationstatistics.org/statistics/fatal-accidents-per-year/
But it could be a lot better. We are still killing ourselves at a rate of just slightly less than 2 people every third day.
It is likely that lady pulled the chute and maybe lowered the death count for this year by one or two. My hat is off to her. Women seem not to get as confused by their ego as men do.
The Cirrus seems to be a really nice airplane. I will never own one (and if I hit the lottery it will be a King Air) but I sure wouldn't kick one out of bed if she wanted to stay for the weekend.
There is one issue that I'm mulling over in my mind about the Cirrus. Most of them are essentially brand new airplanes (compared to the clapped out 57 year old piece of junk I fly) On the surface there seems to be an inordinate rate of mechanical failure that results in chute deployment or crashes. (probably not statistically though)
I'm wondering if that (perceived?) high rate of failure is an engineering issue with the machine or is driven more by the type of person that becomes a Cirrus owner/pilot.
We know that the early Malibu's high rate of accident was directly due to an engine that was being flogged within an inch of it's life - coupled with an owner base that had much more money than skill. A double whammy - harkening back to the V-Tail era..
I have not taken the time to delve into the statistics of the Cirrus but it's typical owner seems to be an analogue of the Fork Tailed Doctor Killer and it's later replacement the Malibu. The jury is still out on the Cirrus but the pattern does appear to be repeating. Still, the high reported rate of failure in these machines is puzzling.
fiveoboy01
Pattern Altitude
You do realize how stupid this sounds, right?
Pilots of all types of aircraft make mistakes and end up dead, but one lives due to a parachute deployment and he's somehow an idiot. I don't understand that line of reasoning. But I guess my elitist/macho/better airman than you switch is turned off.
Don't like a chute, don't buy an airplane that has one.
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
(Okay, this one may be a tad over the line but I found it on the web this morning...laughed out loud...and thought it was perfect for this thread.)
So, everything I've read on the web indicates that the CFI who was flying this aircraft was quite competent, skilled and calm under pressure. Not only during this episodes but others prior.
Thus, I have to believe that if she runs across this thread her thoughts will be:
So, everything I've read on the web indicates that the CFI who was flying this aircraft was quite competent, skilled and calm under pressure. Not only during this episodes but others prior.
Thus, I have to believe that if she runs across this thread her thoughts will be: