Chute Pulled in Midland, TX

Hank S said:
I know a guy who lost the engine in his Mooney over Los Angeles at night. Set it down on a city street, went between two parked cars. Pilot and passenger both walked away. He bought another Mooney, not a plane with a chute . . . . .
Click to expand...

la-dee-da.gif
 
I have to wonder....is there any thought from Cirrus pilots of the responsibility that they would have if they used their parachute and came down on innocent people and seriously hurt of killed anyone? I always kind of thought that as pilots we CHOSE to take on the risk of flying and therefore had a responsibility to put our airplanes down where they would cause minimal loss of life for innocent people on the ground, even at the expense of our own lives.

By pulling the chute, you are automatically putting your own well being above anyone on the ground that might not be suspecting of an airplane falling out of the sky on top of them.

Is that really ethically right to do that?
 
Stephen Shore said:
I have to wonder....is there any thought from Cirrus pilots of the responsibility that they would have if they used their parachute and came down on innocent people and seriously hurt of killed anyone? I always kind of thought that as pilots we CHOSE to take on the risk of flying and therefore had a responsibility to put our airplanes down where they would cause minimal loss of life for innocent people on the ground, even at the expense of our own lives.

By pulling the chute, you are automatically putting your own well being above anyone on the ground that might not be suspecting of an airplane falling out of the sky on top of them.

Is that really ethically right to do that?
Click to expand...

That's quite an opinion, and one that I don't agree with at all.

You don't just pull and pray. Pitch for best glide and find a suitable spot. The chute can be deployed 600ft above the ground (worst case). That buys a lot of time to find a nice spot, and there will be far less lateral movement than a plane ditching at best glide. Without the chute, you're just aiming. I suspect folks on the ground have a better chance of seeing a plane descending under a chute than they would a plane doing 90kts laterally.
 
Last edited:
Stephen Shore said:
I have to wonder....is there any thought from Cirrus pilots of the responsibility that they would have if they used their parachute and came down on innocent people and seriously hurt of killed anyone? I always kind of thought that as pilots we CHOSE to take on the risk of flying and therefore had a responsibility to put our airplanes down where they would cause minimal loss of life for innocent people on the ground, even at the expense of our own lives.

By pulling the chute, you are automatically putting your own well being above anyone on the ground that might not be suspecting of an airplane falling out of the sky on top of them.

Is that really ethically right to do that?
Click to expand...

With that logic, no one should fly, ever. Really, it's a really dumb premise, especially for a pilot to come up with. Not really well thought out in my opinion.
 
Stephen, probably the best way to answer that is to look at stats on ground injury/death/property damage with pulled-chute airplanes. I have no idea but would be interested too.
Without seeing the stats, I suspect that of the hundreds of pulls, there have been very few people on the ground injured or killed.
 
Stephen Shore said:
I have to wonder....is there any thought from Cirrus pilots of the responsibility that they would have if they used their parachute and came down on innocent people and seriously hurt of killed anyone? I always kind of thought that as pilots we CHOSE to take on the risk of flying and therefore had a responsibility to put our airplanes down where they would cause minimal loss of life for innocent people on the ground, even at the expense of our own lives.

By pulling the chute, you are automatically putting your own well being above anyone on the ground that might not be suspecting of an airplane falling out of the sky on top of them.

Is that really ethically right to do that?
Click to expand...

Well, it has never happened to date. The rocket firing sequence is loud, as is the airplane's descent. The reason we have multiple videos of Cirrus coming down under CAPS is that eyewitnesses universally report hearing the incident and looking up. It isn’t a sneaky silent descent (unlike a dead stick landing). Sure, you could come up with a scenario where someone is jogging while listening to their music and unluckily gets flattened by a Cirrus under caps. But then again, that has not happened yet while it DID happen to this person even though the pilot was a manly man who flew his airplane all the way to the ground like the real pilots here would.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/03/disabled_plane_kills_jogger_on.html
 
Last edited:
Hank S said:
I know a guy who lost the engine in his Mooney over Los Angeles at night. Set it down on a city street, went between two parked cars. Pilot and passenger both walked away. He bought another Mooney, not a plane with a chute . . . . .
Click to expand...

Tell that to this guy or any of the countless pilots who die every year trying to dead stick their airplane but end up coming up short. It’s really easy to say but not always easy to do and if you mess it up, it’s game over, you don’t get a second chance. I’d rather live personally...
https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...ll-plane-crashes-into-payson-home/1640872002/
 
RudyP said:
Well, it has never happened to date. The rocket firing sequence is loud, as is the airplane's descent. The reason we have multiple videos of Cirrus coming down under CAPS is that eyewitnesses universally report hearing the incident and looking up. It isn’t a sneaky silent descent. Sure, you could come up with a scenario where someone is jogging while listening to their music and unluckily gets flattened by a Cirrus under caps. But then again, that has not happened yet while it DID happen to this person even though the pilot was a manly man who flew his airplane all the way to the ground like the real pilots here would.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/03/disabled_plane_kills_jogger_on.html
Click to expand...
Here's one too...

"A four-seat airplane crashed on a busy Contra Costa County highway shortly after takeoff Tuesday, severely injuring an 11-year old girl as it sliced open the minivan in which she was riding, and burst into flames during the evening commute."

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Small-plane-crashes-on-I-680-at-rush-hour-Girl-2767531.php

"I just aimed for an open spot on the freeway and prayed," said the pilot​



@Stephen Shore maybe you want to rethink that logic of:

Stephen Shore said:
....
By pulling the chute, you are automatically putting your own well being above anyone on the ground that might not be suspecting of an airplane falling out of the sky on top of them.

Is that really ethically right to do that?
Click to expand...
 
You're right. Let's all quit flying, since pilots and passengers die almost every day making routine landing patterns, generally stall spins in the base to final turns.

Those with chutes get to make one more landing, fly upwind of your airport and pull.

P.S.--look at the daily carnage on our highways! Thousands die every day in this country driving to work, school and shopping. Let's ban all cars, trucks, vans, etc., jackhammer up the highways and grow crops where the roads used to be.
 
Stephen Shore said:
I have to wonder....is there any thought from Cirrus pilots of the responsibility that they would have if they used their parachute and came down on innocent people and seriously hurt of killed anyone? I always kind of thought that as pilots we CHOSE to take on the risk of flying and therefore had a responsibility to put our airplanes down where they would cause minimal loss of life for innocent people on the ground, even at the expense of our own lives.

By pulling the chute, you are automatically putting your own well being above anyone on the ground that might not be suspecting of an airplane falling out of the sky on top of them.

Is that really ethically right to do that?
Click to expand...

I disagree with your opinion, but the bold text I to totally agree with. I can't agree with the opinion of not using the chute when over a populated area. To remove the risk of chutting on a person, one must only fly the Cirri over non-populated ares. As a frequent member of the public under various flight paths, I'd much rather have an airplane under a chute arrive near my personal space than at 60+ knots. I know my Sierra has a glide ratio of the Cirri under a chute, but at 91kts!!!!!!

In the fire service, we said, "Me, we, they." Meaning, if I take care of myself first, I can be part of a team, and then take care of my mission. I will put my airplane down where it will serve me best, using the tools at hand. The best place for me will most likely be a place that is best for everyone else.

With kind regards to the OP,
E
 
i just brought up a question. There are several accounts of pilots who guided their airplanes to land at less populated areas just so that they could avoid unnecessary risk to those on the ground. There was a Cirrus plane that plopped down in the middle of a highway in between cars in Rogers, AR just this past year. It was a miracle that no one was killed.

Pilots without chutes have routinely FLOWN their airplanes to the ground over the decades to avoid innocent's being hurt of killed. To say this is not a worthy question to ponder the ethical responsibility of a chute is being a little dishonest. I don't know what i would do - I would like to think that I too would fly my Cirrus to the ground at the possible cost of my own life if I found myself in this very horrible condition. But - who knows.
 
Stephen Shore said:
i just brought up a question. There are several accounts of pilots who guided their airplanes to land at less populated areas just so that they could avoid unnecessary risk to those on the ground. There was a Cirrus plane that plopped down in the middle of a highway in between cars in Rogers, AR just this past year. It was a miracle that no one was killed.

Pilots without chutes have routinely FLOWN their airplanes to the ground over the decades to avoid innocent's being hurt of killed. To say this is not a worthy question to ponder the ethical responsibility of a chute is being a little dishonest. I don't know what i would do - I would like to think that I too would fly my Cirrus to the ground at the possible cost of my own life if I found myself in this very horrible condition. But - who knows.
Click to expand...

It’s fine to raise the question (I certainly didn’t chastise you for doing so) but did provide an answer and some evidence to support it. Facts are:
- no one on the ground has been killed by a CAPS plane
- people HAVE been killed by dead stick planes with pilots presumably flying it to what they thought was the best place to land
- CAPS isn’t silent like some believe it to be. Bystanders report hearing it, looking up and having time to move around for a better view, get their phone out for video, etc. it would not be hard to move out of the way.
- a CAPS plane coming down at 17mph is a lot easier to get out of the way of than a plane gliding in at 70 Kts silently, a bit like this:
- the danger footprint of a plane under caps is the area of the plane, not the wingspan of the plane X hundreds of feet
- the old “he did everything he could to avoid innocent bystanders, even steering away from a school at the last second!” breathless reporting is probably 99% nonsense. Most people who survive hairy dead stick landings were in serious adrenaline dump “fight or flight” mode and have severe tunnel vision. They’re not dodging and weaving pedestrians at the last second. I have seen multiple pictures of a dead stick plane under power lines that the pilot never even saw.

So, yeah, I’d say there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that you’re being more selfish pulling CAPS than heroically trying to dead stick it into a populated area. All you’re really doing is BSing yourself and increasing your own chance of death.
 
Last edited:
Stephen Shore said:
i just brought up a question. There are several accounts of pilots who guided their airplanes to land at less populated areas just so that they could avoid unnecessary risk to those on the ground. There was a Cirrus plane that plopped down in the middle of a highway in between cars in Rogers, AR just this past year. It was a miracle that no one was killed.

Pilots without chutes have routinely FLOWN their airplanes to the ground over the decades to avoid innocent's being hurt of killed. To say this is not a worthy question to ponder the ethical responsibility of a chute is being a little dishonest. I don't know what i would do - I would like to think that I too would fly my Cirrus to the ground at the possible cost of my own life if I found myself in this very horrible condition. But - who knows.
Click to expand...

Um, just a few posts above there's a quote about a guy who flew his mooney onto a street between two parked cars. To quote you, it's a miracle no one was killed. Or wait, was that heroic because it was a non-Cirrus?

Your whole premise is flawed, and you're putting some kind of nonsensical ethical dilemma on a Cirrus pilot and absolving anyone else.
 
Stephen Shore said:
i just brought up a question. There are several accounts of pilots who guided their airplanes to land at less populated areas just so that they could avoid unnecessary risk to those on the ground. There was a Cirrus plane that plopped down in the middle of a highway in between cars in Rogers, AR just this past year. It was a miracle that no one was killed.

Pilots without chutes have routinely FLOWN their airplanes to the ground over the decades to avoid innocent's being hurt of killed. To say this is not a worthy question to ponder the ethical responsibility of a chute is being a little dishonest. I don't know what i would do - I would like to think that I too would fly my Cirrus to the ground at the possible cost of my own life if I found myself in this very horrible condition. But - who knows.
Click to expand...

Flip your question. If you have no chute and are over a populated area, what brick wall are you going to aim for which then has a lower percentage chance of injuring someone on the ground.
As others have pointed out, a plane under a chute (BRS has an STC for a few models, such as Cessna 182), is a lot louder, slower, and impacts significantly less space. All of which are lower risk for people on the ground.

Tim
 
Here's a real pilot who flew it all the way down...... into a house

https://fox5sandiego.com/2017/12/09/small-plane-crashes-in-clairemont/

Fortunately no one was in the house, but I'm sure our heroic pilot knew that and aimed for that specific one.

And read the article, a guy working on his roof had no idea until be HEARD the crash into the house. He didn't see anything. As RudyP said, he would have heard the CAPS rocket launch.

Edit: and the passengers might just might still be alive. And the dog that was in the house at the time. To the pilot's credit, he said he aimed for a field behind the house. But he didn't quite make it, did he? ... that whole lateral momentum thing.
 
Last edited:
Ah ha! I see your point, then. For discussion's sake.

Where the pilot(s) chose to guide their airplane to a less populated area, they may 'acting' altruistic. However, maybe, really acting selfishly; using the altruistic argument to replace (unnecessarily) self-imposed victimization of the event. So, maybe in an academic moral position, egotistical-altruism is over ruling super-egocentric, or worse, narcissistic acts. Either way I look at it, the moral obligation to land on a field vs a parking lot, if able, is both egocentric or altruistic - depending on the observer. :) My problem is acting the "hero" (victim) to save other's lives at the behest of one's own.

To dramatically express in a quoted thought: Pilot..."oh, woe is me, my engine has failed me, do I land in the soccer field or the pile of boulders? If only I could cast out a safety device and happily land in a sea of marshmallows and unicorn pooh instead..." -Me

I routinely fly over densely populated areas to and over mountainous areas. There is a very small percentage of time where I can most likely make a safe* landing if there was a problem. Like, maybe 2 whole minutes of some 30 minute flights. If the mission I usually fly would allow me to use an airplane with a chute, I would. However, budget, risk acceptance, and adrenaline all factor into the equation. Budget, being the most restrictive (you get two: fast, cheap, strong).

*Safe is defined by me, ymmv.
 
teejayevans said:
https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/27/us/florida-plane-crash-lands-on-beach/index.html

Or

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ight-plane-lands-on-beach-in-portugal-reports
Click to expand...

I don't understand. How come people didn't get out of the way? Didn't they see it coming? Or the super pilots didn't navigate around innocent folks? Aren't they supposed to put others' lives above their own? How'd that work out?

See... here, I'd pull the chute over the water, hop out and swim to shore. Non-event, really. And no injuries or fatalities.
 
Hank S said:
You're right. Let's all quit flying, since pilots and passengers die almost every day making routine landing patterns, generally stall spins in the base to final turns.

Those with chutes get to make one more landing, fly upwind of your airport and pull.

P.S.--look at the daily carnage on our highways! Thousands die every day in this country driving to work, school and shopping. Let's ban all cars, trucks, vans, etc., jackhammer up the highways and grow crops where the roads used to be.
Click to expand...
Actually, base-to-final stall spins are less than [if memory serves] 25% of accidents.
 
Stephen Shore said:
snipped

By flying an airplane, you are automatically putting your own well being above anyone on the ground that might not be suspecting of an airplane falling out of the sky on top of them.

Is that really ethically right to do that?
Click to expand...

Stephen, the problem I have with your premise is the limitation you have chosen to put upon it. I've modified your quote above to include all airplanes, which again is certainly a valid question but is it truly realistic? I think it isn't. Airplanes are generally pretty safe, yes there is loads of room for improvement, but using the chute over gliding it in to an off field landing are really not that much different in my opinion as far as risk to the public, with the exception that the chute is probably much safer for the passengers for most circumstances when bad things happen.

I'm flying Cirrus now and have had the good fortune to fly with an instructor who pulled. He was getting checked out in a Cirrus and the engine failed. They were in the process of landing in a field when at about 300 feet they realized they were not going make it to the field, which was surrounded by trees. So he pulled. He pulled, they survived without a scratch.

We choose to fly, it has risks. We choose to drive, it has risks too, pretty much the same types of risks (yes, cars have landed in houses and killed people). Yes we should minimize the risk to innocents when we fly, in my opinion not pulling really doesn't minimize the risk to innocents in most instances.

Cirrus had a high accident fatality rate when they first came out. Turns out pilots were not pulling the chute, rather they were killing themselves when they had a lifesaver they didn't use. Cirrus turned that around by standardizing the training and drilling into pilots that the chute is the first thing to consider in an emergency. Engine dies, establish best glide, then should I pull?? If at 5,000 agl, maybe not, look for a better option, like the airport right below you. If at 500 feet agl, yep pull and live. The potential scenarios are many, but if the first or close to the first question is should I pull, you are much safer in the long run. Pull to live.
 
Last edited:
MetalCloud said:
I don't understand. How come people didn't get out of the way? Didn't they see it coming? Or the super pilots didn't navigate around innocent folks? Aren't they supposed to put others' lives above their own? How'd that work out?

See... here, I'd pull the chute over the water, hop out and swim to shore. Non-event, really. And no injuries or fatalities.
Click to expand...

Well, without a running engine a plane is very quiet.
They were trying to save the plane instead of saving people, especially on the ground.
 
So, airliners have killed non-participating bystanders on the ground. I don't hear the pitchforks or the umbrage about shutting down airliners overflying people yet. The fact remains, humans exercise selective morality to fit their biases. Airliners are par for the course, but private Flyers overflying your head is all of a sudden blasphemy?

As far as I'm concerned as someone who works sitting on a hot seat, the answer for me is no, I do not find it an ethical requirement to commit suicide over the total avoidance of people on the ground. This is the case whether I had a ballistic recovery system or not. If you find my position morally deplorable, you're free to undertake these life opportunity costs in earnest instead of just talking about it from the cheap seats of life.
 
Last edited:
BrianNC said:
All this time I never knew that sound was sirens. I just thought it was the sound made when the plane was diving, and didn't know it was a specific plane.
Click to expand...

iu
 
I used to lay on the end of the runway in Waco when 707s were doing training. The 707 is very eerily silent while landing. So quiet I could hear the vortices coming from the wings.
 
BrianNC said:
All this time I never knew that sound was sirens. I just thought it was the sound made when the plane was diving, and didn't know it was a specific plane.
Click to expand...

The Germans were quite expert in finding any way to terrorize their opponents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top