CAPS deployment caught on camera near FYV

I have no issue with the chute in emergencies. In this particular case?? I have no clue. I don't know the facts. In addition, I would have some heart burn second guessing the PIC.

I'm just wondering though.. How would this thread be different if the plane, under the chute, landed on a car and killed a family of four? Or on top of a house?? Heck, one of the articles said a truck hit it as it touched down, so my scenario is not far fetched.
 
Another important question is: who pulled the red handle?
There is a possibility that even though the pilot might have wanted to make the field, the passengers simply pulled the handle. Just pointing it out as a possibility.

Again, until the NTSB report comes out, we are all just guessing here. Let's hope the thread doesn't spiral more out of control.
 
If pilots think this thread is spiraling out of control no wonder they deploy CAPS for non-issues.:lol: If we can't criticize pilots post incident how are we to learn from their mistakes?
 
Actually... legit question. Is there any control once the chute is deployed? like will use of rudder or anything help guide the plane?
 
MetalCloud said:
Actually... legit question. Is there any control once the chute is deployed? like will use of rudder or anything help guide the plane?
Click to expand...

None. Rudder won't help plane is going downwind at windspeed. In one incident the pilot restarted the motor to avoid a lake but I believe that is counter indicated in the manual.
 
Y'all must be some of those "rich pilots" I keep hearing about. ;)

If everyone starts pulling the rocket handle every time they see a low oil pressure indication, insurance rates are gonna soar out of the stratosphere. No one would be able to afford it, if anyone was left to offer it.

Before the reading impaired jump, just to be clear I am NOT saying that's what happened here. My money is on the engine stopping prior to chute deployment, but we will have to wait and see.
 
MetalCloud said:
Actually... legit question. Is there any control once the chute is deployed? like will use of rudder or anything help guide the plane?
Click to expand...

According to Cirrus all forward velocity is supposed to be reduced to zero relative to the wind and you're descending at 1700fpm. So I don't think there's much control once the chute is deployed.
 
Maciej said:
According to Cirrus all forward velocity is supposed to be reduced to zero relative to the wind and you're descending at 1700fpm. So I don't think there's much control once the chute is deployed.
Click to expand...


Descending at 1700fpm, that'll still make a good crunch.
 
James331 said:
Descending at 1700fpm, that'll still make a good crunch.
Click to expand...

20mph or so, hell yeah it will.

I'm surprised the descent rate is so high, I'm pretty sure I can hold my Diamond at 45kts or so in dirty configuration with a ~450fpm descent rate.
 
Maciej said:
According to Cirrus all forward velocity is supposed to be reduced to zero relative to the wind and you're descending at 1700fpm. So I don't think there's much control once the chute is deployed.
Click to expand...

1700 fpm? Wow, I didn't realize the descent rate was that high. That would not be a pleasant ride.
 
Stingray Don said:
1700 fpm? Wow, I didn't realize the descent rate was that high. That would not be a pleasant ride.
Click to expand...

Still, 20mph downward to a hard stop is preferable to 50mph forward to a hard stop. Pick your poison, you're gonna have to stop eventually...
 
Kritchlow said:
I'm just wondering though.. How would this thread be different if the plane, under the chute, landed on a car and killed a family of four? Or on top of a house?? Heck, one of the articles said a truck hit it as it touched down, so my scenario is not far fetched.
Click to expand...

A Cirrus came down on a truck. The driver got out of the truck and helped the pilot out of the plane. Both were ok.

Amazing how people work at negative scenarios. How about this one. Your engine quits so you glide down to a beach for an emergency landing. You hit a guy jogging with headphones on who could''t hear you (engine out) and kill him. Seem rare? Similar scenarios happened twice in one year.

How about this. You make an emergency landing on a road and the prop cuts through a car killing someone. That's happened too.

A plane making an emergency landing covers a lot of horizontal area and puts many more people at risk.
 
MetalCloud said:
Actually... legit question. Is there any control once the chute is deployed? like will use of rudder or anything help guide the plane?
Click to expand...

According to BRS, leaving the engine running and trying to act like a power glider will cause the chute to spill air and come down faster.

Did you notice how many videos there are of almost the entire descent? CAPS going off makes a very loud noise. It gets people's attention.
 
peppy said:
According to BRS, leaving the engine running and trying to act like a power glider will cause the chute to spill air and come down faster.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Killing the engine with the mixture is part of the CAPS checklist for that reason.

Anecdotally, Ilan Reich pulled CAPS over the Hudson River after an undiagnosed brain tumor led to a seizure. He did not initially kill the engine, and had the impression he was able to steer the plane away from a power station with the rudder. But I don't think he was all that confident in his perceptions at that point.

As an aside, he came down in the river and the impact fractured a vertebrae. It was speculated that the impact was higher without the gear collapsing to take some of the brunt of the impact. Not sure if the engine was still running at that point, or if the delay in securing it possibly led to an increased rate of descent into the water.
 
Stingray Don said:
1700 fpm? Wow, I didn't realize the descent rate was that high. That would not be a pleasant ride.
Click to expand...

In many cases the impact has been lessened by trees or water. Coming down flat on a hard surface causes the wheels to bend up and absorb a lot of shock. There is a protected area of the wing that lacks fuel. It is where the wheels hit if bent that far. The seats have honeycombed aluminum in the bottom to help protect the spine. There are also 4 point seat belts and airbags.

On a different note, the pilot said his engine died. That leaves the descent as a big question. Fortunately the pilot is alive to hopefully comment later.

As for my speculation, I think the engine was making power at the time of the descent and the pilot was following ATC instructions thinking he was making a precautionary landing. ATC gives him a descent. Then the engine goes and he lacks altitude. In hindsight it is easy to say he should have stayed high but then again that's in hindsight. Having had a friend come up short, stall and get killed a couple hundred feet from the runway I think this guy did ok.
 
FastEddieB said:
Exactly. Killing the engine with the mixture is part of the CAPS checklist for that reason.

Anecdotally, Ilan Reich pulled CAPS over the Hudson River after an undiagnosed brain tumor led to a seizure. He did not initially kill the engine, and had the impression he was able to steer the plane away from a power station with the rudder. But I don't think he was all that confident in his perceptions at that point.

As an aside, he came down in the river and the impact fractured a vertebrae. It was speculated that the impact was higher without the gear collapsing to take some of the brunt of the impact. Not sure if the engine was still running at that point, or if the delay in securing it possibly led to an increased rate of descent into the water.
Click to expand...

According to a person with BRS (can't remember who - sorry) Ilan may have been injured by spilling air and coming down faster than normal.
 
peppy said:
A Cirrus came down on a truck. The driver got out of the truck and helped the pilot out of the plane. Both were ok.

Amazing how people work at negative scenarios. How about this one. Your engine quits so you glide down to a beach for an emergency landing. You hit a guy jogging with headphones on who could''t hear you (engine out) and kill him. Seem rare? Similar scenarios happened twice in one year.

How about this. You make an emergency landing on a road and the prop cuts through a car killing someone. That's happened too.

A plane making an emergency landing covers a lot of horizontal area and puts many more people at risk.
Click to expand...
Me?? Sheesh... I detected zero negativity in my post. Of course, you only quoted part of it.

It was a question. Should I ask your permission next time prior to asking something?
 
Kritchlow said:
Me?? Sheesh... I detected zero negativity in my post. Of course, you only quoted part of it.

It was a question. Should I ask your permission next time prior to asking something?
Click to expand...

Sorry if I misunderstood your intent. For years now people have said that the fact that the pilot isn't under control coming down is this huge safety issue. There have been all kinds of scenarios proposed. Despite all kinds of real world data showing otherwise it goes on. I don't see people doing the same when talking about standard engine out scenarios. Your comment just sounded like another one of those. My apologies.
 
peppy said:
Sorry if I misunderstood your intent. For years now people have said that the fact that the pilot isn't under control coming down is this huge safety issue. There have been all kinds of scenarios proposed. Despite all kinds of real world data showing otherwise it goes on. I don't see people doing the same when talking about standard engine out scenarios. Your comment just sounded like another one of those. My apologies.
Click to expand...

Thank you...
I truly have nothing against "pulling the chute", and certainly am not a fan of second guessing the PIC (or crew) that handles the situation at the time.
 
Phoenix said:
If pilots think this thread is spiraling out of control no wonder they deploy CAPS for non-issues.:lol: If we can't criticize pilots post incident how are we to learn from their mistakes?
Click to expand...

You can go back from whence you came anytime now...
 
Keep in mind the honeycomb aluminum in the seats are rated for over 20G's of force. Curious to see if survivors of CAPS pulls have had any back or tailbone problems.
 
rocketflyer84 said:
...In my opinion Cirrus training focuses too much on the chute and not enough on avoiding situations that would require a chute. ...
Click to expand...

Which part of the Cirrus training have you read recently that leads you to this opinion?
 
He's right. In my training, they taught that CAPS was to be activated for the following situations:

1. Crosswind on landing
2. Engine start
3. Spilled Coffee (or other beverage. Hot or cold)
4. Cleared for takeoff (or landing assuming you didn't pull when cleared for takeoff)
5. During preflight
6. water found in fuel during sumping
7. Water not found in fuel during sumping
7. Checking NOTAMS
8. After yelling "Clear!"
9. Out of cookies at the FBO
10. 2 Number 7s
11. If anyone in the plane passes gas
12. Cant seem to find a buyer for your plane
13. Thinking about going flying that day

Those were the 13 situations that were drilled into us.
We never actually got to fly the aircraft during transition training. They said it wouldn't be necessary if we could commit those 13 items to memory
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
He's right. In my training, they taught that CAPS was to be activated for the following situations:

1. Crosswind on landing
2. Engine start
3. Spilled Coffee (or other beverage. Hot or cold)
4. Cleared for takeoff (or landing assuming you didn't pull when cleared for takeoff)
5. During preflight
6. water found in fuel during sumping
7. Water not found in fuel during sumping
7. Checking NOTAMS
8. After yelling "Clear!"
9. Out of cookies at the FBO
10. 2 Number 7s
11. If anyone in the plane passes gas
12. Cant seem to find a buyer for your plane
13. Thinking about going flying that day
Click to expand...

:rofl:
 
F01LA said:
Regardless of the oscillation, the rate of descent looks pretty intense. That explains the injuries you hear about after BRS deployment. My fear would be having back problems all my life after a landing under chute. Beats the alternative, though, if the alternative involves a smoking hole.
Click to expand...

From a Cirrus owner who follows all things Cirrus...very few accidents have caused injuries of any lasting consequence. The landing gear, body, and even the seat are all designed carefullly to collapse, cushioning the blow. Cirrus fatality rates stand at about 1/2 the average GA rate.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Y'all must be some of those "rich pilots" I keep hearing about. ;)

If everyone starts pulling the rocket handle every time they see a low oil pressure indication, insurance rates are gonna soar out of the stratosphere. No one would be able to afford it, if anyone was left to offer it.

Before the reading impaired jump, just to be clear I am NOT saying that's what happened here. My money is on the engine stopping prior to chute deployment, but we will have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
Actually insurance companies are huge fans of pulling 'chutes. They end up with a claim for the hull loss and usually little or no medical or liability, both of which can be far more costly than the hull.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
From a Cirrus owner who follows all things Cirrus...very few accidents have caused injuries of any lasting consequence. The landing gear, body, and even the seat are all designed carefullly to collapse, cushioning the blow. Cirrus fatality rates stand at about 1/2 the average GA rate.
Click to expand...

That is impressive.
I think what some may be saying (not necessarily me) is that the security of the chute is replacicing some "attention to training".
 
VWGhiaBob said:
Actually insurance companies are huge fans of pulling 'chutes. They end up with a claim for the hull loss and usually little or no medical or liability, both of which can be far more costly than the hull.
Click to expand...

That was my thoughts as well.
Because of that, do Cirrus owners get cheaper insurance? If this theory is correct, they should.
 
jordane93 said:
Keep in mind the honeycomb aluminum in the seats are rated for over 20G's of force. Curious to see if survivors of CAPS pulls have had any back or tailbone problems.
Click to expand...

Yes, a few back injuries are mentioned in one of the lists on COPA. None are typical deployments. One was a water landing after a pilot medical emergency, one was a deployment too close to ground for full deployment of the chute, and one involved the plane dropping to the ground after the chute snagged on a tower.

Considering the number of deployments, it's not a lot of back injuries. And I doubt if any of those outcomes would have been improved in an off-field landing at 70 knots.
 
Interesting that the actual head of Walmart, Sam waltons son was killed in an ultralight accident. He had no chute. In this case is the investigation complete,? has the pilot, saved by the chute given a statement? He cannot be a village idiot or he would not have had the job he had.
 
So... Should all airplanes. Have chutes? Would it be safer for my Airbus to have a giant chute?

Totally not being argumentative or "anti-chute", just trying to learn the thought patterns.
 
Kritchlow said:
So... Should all airplanes. Have chutes? Would it be safer for my Airbus to have a giant chute?

Totally not being argumentative or "anti-chute", just trying to learn the thought patterns.
Click to expand...

IMO
I think it should be an option for anyone.
That's it an option

Required. Heck no.

Just an option.
The aircraft that are eligible for BRS is very limited at this point.
The price point is beyond most of us as well.
 
Kritchlow said:
So... Should all airplanes. Have chutes? Would it be safer for my Airbus to have a giant chute?

Totally not being argumentative or "anti-chute", just trying to learn the thought patterns.
Click to expand...

Well, here's a thought pattern to weigh.

Consider the risks of travel. On major airlines in the US, essentially nobody dies. So there's no point in making a radical change, for safety. Safety on an Airbus is far better than in a car. Why change it. In a small plane, however, it far worse than in a car. So change it.

And a chute changes things. Because it works. It can help with a lot of typical scenarios that kill pilots. The biggest killers are pilot error, weather, and mechanical failure. So let's consider them.

Yesterday's case looks like an example of mechanical failure, with a loss of oil pressure. So you aren't going to make the field, pull the chute. I would do it unless I was directly over a 10,000' runway.

Weather is another big killer. VFR into IMC. Icing. The chute is great for weather problems that keep you from flying the plane, because what other alternatives do you have when you can't fly the plane?

Pilot error is the biggest killer, of course, and a chute can tackle a lot of those cases, too. Like fuel exhaustion. Disorientation. Stuff that's the pilot's fault, but it happens. And it would be nice if one mess-up in your life doesn't become your death sentence.
 
Kritchlow said:
That was my thoughts as well.
Because of that, do Cirrus owners get cheaper insurance? If this theory is correct, they should.
Click to expand...

Until recently the Cirrus had a bad fatality rate... worse than the overall GA fleet so that counts against it. More recently there has been an impressive turnaround in those stats so if the trend continues that will certainly help.

As for the "chute" from an insurance company's perspective it's not totally clean cut. The chute isn't perfect. There have been I believe 16 fatalities in accidents where the chute was pulled. Some play with the stats and try to say that shouldn't count because people pulled the chute in "suboptimal conditions". Stats don't really work like that. If you exclude all "suboptimal" cases then of course the numbers look good! Last I checked something like 12% or so of passengers in Cirrus chute deployments were killed.

Stats for chute deployments at high altitude are much better but of course in many of those cases one might argue the chute wasn't necessary. In some cases though, especially where the pilot totally lost control of the aircraft, there's no question the chute saved lives.

Insurance companies look at the data above and thus, at least yet, the rates are still high. If the current trend of lower accident rates continues then there could be some tangible benefits. The stats for the last few years seem to show that changes made are helping make the Cirrus a much safer airplane than it was last decade and that's only a good thing for GA.
 
Last edited:
rocketflyer84 said:
The stats for the last few years seem to show that changes made are helping make the Cirrus a much safer airplane than it was last decade and that's only a good thing for GA.
Click to expand...

What changes have been made??
 
MtnMarcus said:
What changes have been made??
Click to expand...

Changes in the training program for one. Also there could be a certain feedback loop in the stats. Right around the time the Cirrus was getting a firm reputation for being a dangerous aircraft was when the stats turned the other way. In some sense the reputation and articles about high accident rates may have helped make people more careful when flying the airplane.
 
Early on all Cirrus pilots were low time in type. All were trained to land the aircraft in an emergency. Instructors were often dismissive of CAPS. All of that has been slowly changing.

The poster about people not counting some chute pulls is correct that some aren't counted. When a person pulls 100' above the ground then most people don't count that. I certainly don't. There have also been chute deployments caused by ground impact. I don't count those either.
 
If you read a lot of pilot forums you will easily find an attitude of "real pilots don't need no stinking chute." It has lessened the last few years but was very prevalent in the early Cirrus days. Consequently there were many accidents where you looked and said "Why didn't he pull?" There was a more recent crash where the owner was known to be dismissive of CAPS. He had an engine failure but plenty of altitude and told ATC he was doing an emergency landing. All went well until the nose wheel hit a small pile of dirt. The plane flipped and the pilot and his wife were killed. The daughter survived.
 
peppy said:
If you read a lot of pilot forums you will easily find an attitude of "real pilots don't need no stinking chute." It has lessened the last few years but was very prevalent in the early Cirrus days. Consequently there were many accidents where you looked and said "Why didn't he pull?" There was a more recent crash where the owner was known to be dismissive of CAPS. He had an engine failure but plenty of altitude and told ATC he was doing an emergency landing. All went well until the nose wheel hit a small pile of dirt. The plane flipped and the pilot and his wife were killed. The daughter survived.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of pilots out there that think they are much better than they really are. The arrogance and false sense of confidence I have seen in some would be quite comical if it wasn't potentially dangerous. I'm sure many of the dead pilots who happened to make one bad mistake thought they were good and safe pilots as well.

During an engine out, it doesn't even require a "mistake" for you to end up dead. Many times you don't have a lot of good options and if you don't make some very quick and good decisions your open spot of land might not work out. And even if you make the right decisions, it still might not work out.

The pilots who dismiss the parachute as some kind of safety net for bad pilots are delusional. Just look at the numbers and do the math, that's all you really have to do. I am not saying the parachute is the end all be all of safety, it's not. We can harp on about training all day, and while it is very important.......we still have good and experienced pilots die on a weekly basis. Thing is we are human and aren't always perfect.

If things are going very south and you pull the parachute instead of trying to make a dubious landing you might or might not make, good for you. The numbers are on your side.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top