Cirrus on a 'chute in Addison

woodchucker said:
I remember a Cirrus article linked here a while back where the pilot pulled the chute over Colorado grassland. Maybe not so cut and dry. Obviously in this situation low and urban yeah, I would break my arm pulling the red handle.

It would be damn embarrassing though for a Ciruss come floating down and land in a crumpled mess on a runway. I’m waiting for that one to happen.
Click to expand...
Why? Lose an engine near an airport, get back to the airport and pull the chute.
Pulling the chute is close to 100 percent guarantee you walk away. Landing without an engine is not even close.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
eman1200 said:
I’m not so sure....fire and smoke rise, those marks are facing downwards. I think the side of the cowl may have dug into that hole in the ground you see just next to the plane. If the fire was in flight or while floating down under BRS, the marks should go up but they don’t. But detective @tawood could debunk that theory quickly.
Click to expand...
I've worked homicide, property crimes, and fraud...but never arson. I don't know didly about fire / smoke investigations...sorry.
 
benyflyguy said:
I agree.

Today I witnessed something I never paid attention to before. I went to the hangar jus to sit and well hang out with s buddy and his kid. Watched about 8 planes taxi down and “run up”. Now one was the jump plane and didn’t even turn plane off to reload. Of the other 7, only one did a formal run-up (was my CFI with his kid). The rest of them either just taxied and took off. Two guys throttled up a bit for maybe 10 sec. so the majority never took the time to do a formal run up..
Click to expand...
When I was flying work planes, I'd usually do a runup first take off of the day only, even if the motor had been shut down in between flights. But the first flight of the day for that aircraft I would do a full normal runup every time. And of course in the turbo props there was typically no runup at all, just cycle the prop during taxi out and go.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Yup. It is designed to absorb some energy. I believe the seats have some intended crush zone to help with that as well. @RudyP probably knows more about how that works.
He tends to know a lot of detail about how these things are designed.
Click to expand...

Correct on both counts. One of the design criteria of the main landing gear is the ability of the gear legs to splay on vertical impact, providing a design energy absorption over a foot or two of travel (top of the wheel pants often dent into the bottom of the wing on hard surface CAPS landings). The two front seats also sit on top of a honeycomb crush structure of about 4” which can flatten to less than an inch providing additional energy absorption right under the occupants body. In combination, the gear and crush structures provide a good amount of controlled deceleration to minimize injury when CAPS lands on a hard surface - many CAPS landings have been on softer stuff (trees, water, etc) which typically do an even better job of softly decelerating the vertical impact.

woodchucker said:
Is there any type of protective reinforcement under the cabin area? I’m eyeing that light pole that is 10-15 feet from where the pilot seat is.
Click to expand...

There’s a beefy spar under the seat that would be very hard to penetrate but no additional specific reinforcement (this isn’t an A10 titanium tub type situation!). In 79 CAPS deployments, I’m not aware of a single intrusion into the cabin by anything sticking up on the ground. And plenty have landed in trees, fences, etc...
 
That burned-out hole on the right side is where the engine-driven fuel pump is located. I know this because I had a SR-20 that partially lost power due to the nut attaching the aforementioned pump to the main fuel line get loose and spray fuel ALL over the inside of the cowling in that location. I was able to run the electric pump, got full power back and landed at the nearest airport thanks to ATC.

If the -22 is the same setup, I would suspect that, unlike my scenario, the fuel caught fire.
 
That's a good real world pirep. It sure looks like there was an intense but short lived fire there.
 
An old co-worker of mine had a similar situation with an SR-20. Engine driven fuel pump gave out and electric boost pump got them home. I don't remember if the failure was of the component or the attachment. They did not have a fire situation on their hands fortunately.
 
Nope on the -550 it’s at the rear, low on the opposite side.
 
Stingray Don said:
If I had an engine failure at altitude in a plane equipped with a chute, I would pull that handle so hard they would have to surgically remove it from my hand.
Click to expand...
So...cruising at 10,000 AGL with multiple airports below you and the engine quits, you’re going straight for the chute?

For the record, I have zero problems with someone pulling the chute. But as a Cirrus pilot, if I'm up high in cruise, I'm not going straight for the chute. My personal hard deck 2000' AGL. If I'm not completely confident I have a runway made by 2000', then I'm pulling.

It's like engine failures in a twin. There is no need to rush decisions when you have an issue at altitude.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
So...cruising at 10,000 AGL with multiple airports below you and the engine quits, you’re going straight for the chute?
Click to expand...

Since I have not flown gliders, and all single engine, engine out flying I have practiced have been with "zero thrust" settings, I know I do not have the judgement to land a plane perfectly every time without power and guarantee a walk away landing. It only takes a small miss-judgement on the winds/gusts or mechanical wind effects on the runway to turn a safe landing into a disaster.

Therefore chance for pilot error, regardless of training I have completed is higher than the chance of chute error.

I would therefore glide to be over an airport around 1500ft AGL and pull the chute.
 
Fearless Tower said:
So...cruising at 10,000 AGL with multiple airports below you and the engine quits, you’re going straight for the chute?

For the record, I have zero problems with someone pulling the chute. But as a Cirrus pilot, if I'm up high in cruise, I'm not going straight for the chute. My personal hard deck 2000' AGL. If I'm not completely confident I have a runway made by 2000', then I'm pulling.

It's like engine failures in a twin. There is no need to rush decisions when you have an issue at altitude.
Click to expand...
I have a 172, so the chute is not an option. If I had a chute, I would use it for an engine failure as long as I had the required altitude. At 10,000', I would take time to troubleshoot and try to get the engine restarted, but, failing that, I would pull even if within gliding range of a runway. If I pull the chute, I will live to fly another day. If I botch the power-off approach (which I am perfectly capable of) then my flying days may end. I'm not risking my neck to protect the insurance company's plane.
 
tspear said:
I would therefore glide to be over an airport around 1500ft AGL and pull the chute.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that idea.

Like I said, it depends a lot on your comfort level when you get down to that point. If you have a lot of experience doing power off approaches, your comfort/confidence level is likely to be higher. My issue is the idea of going straight for the chute at first problem without any further thought. 10K is a lot of drift down at the mercy of winds. Flying over inhospitable terrain, for example, could put you in a bad place drifting down several thousand feet with zero control.

The one thing I would recommend though is pulling at 2000' vice 1500' and that is because not all Cirrus chutes are the same. Some of the Cirrus chutes need almost 1500' AGL to fully deploy.
 
tspear said:
Since I have not flown gliders, and all single engine, engine out flying I have practiced have been with "zero thrust" settings, I know I do not have the judgement to land a plane perfectly every time without power and guarantee a walk away landing. It only takes a small miss-judgement on the winds/gusts or mechanical wind effects on the runway to turn a safe landing into a disaster.

Therefore chance for pilot error, regardless of training I have completed is higher than the chance of chute error.

I would therefore glide to be over an airport around 1500ft AGL and pull the chute.
Click to expand...

So just give up on any kind of control and let the chute take you where ever? What if there's a strong surface wind? What about Powerlines? "Zero Thrust" practice does help in setting up a true power off landing - you just won't glide quite as far. There are some simple visual cues to help you manage your gliding approach. I don't have the chute option, but even if I did, no way I'd pull if I had a makeable glide to a runway.
 
Stingray Don said:
I have a 172, so the chute is not an option. If I had a chute, I would use it for an engine failure as long as I had the required altitude. At 10,000', I would take time to troubleshoot and try to get the engine restarted, but, failing that, I would pull even if within gliding range of a runway. If I pull the chute, I will live to fly another day. If I botch the power-off approach (which I am perfectly capable of) then my flying days may end. I'm not risking my neck to protect the insurance company's plane.
Click to expand...
Again, I have no issue with that. It all depends on your comfort level and how confident (not how macho) you are that you will make the runway. I just don't subscribe to the pull first (at high altitude) without any further thought.
 
@Hang 4 @Fearless Tower

Historically, I practice engine out along with other emergencies every six to nine months when I do a refresher training. Even then, a day after doing such a refresher, I go with the mathematical odds, not with my confidence/ego.

Therefore, run the math, winds have to exceed roughly thirty knots sustained on the ground for a worst case crash landing at best glide speed to have a lower energy state than a Cirrus coming down vertically under a chute. So, as a general rule, yeah descend and deploy.

FYI, minimum deployment is effectively around 600ft when straight and level. Most deploy around 2,000ft, vertical speed is roughly 15fps which means from 2000ft you have roughly a minute and half to descend.

Tim
 
Without questioning the pilot’s decision to I’m curious if the PIC was aware of the fire and what led to the decision to deploy the chute.

The one thing that scares me with a fire and a chute is burning up while floating down.
 
tspear said:
FYI, minimum deployment is effectively around 600ft when straight and level. Most deploy around 2,000ft, vertical speed is roughly 15fps which means from 2000ft you have roughly a minute and half to descend.
Click to expand...
Minimum deployment is not the same for all Cirrus chutes!
 
Fearless Tower said:
So...cruising at 10,000 AGL with multiple airports below you and the engine quits, you’re going straight for the chute?

For the record, I have zero problems with someone pulling the chute. But as a Cirrus pilot, if I'm up high in cruise, I'm not going straight for the chute. My personal hard deck 2000' AGL. If I'm not completely confident I have a runway made by 2000', then I'm pulling.

It's like engine failures in a twin. There is no need to rush decisions when you have an issue at altitude.
Click to expand...

Cirrus trains that the chute is the first option considered during an emergency, not necessarily the best one unless you are at a critical altitude without a runway in front of you. The pilot puts his/her hand on the handle, says caps available, should I pull? Sometimes the answer is no at this time, and you continue to work the problem, periodically reassessing if you should pull.

In your scenario, a runway, if easily made, is a better option than the chute, which has its own set of risks. But on your way down to the runway, the chute is still an option, a good option, versus an off field landing, so it should still be in your thought process, which obviously, for you, it is.
 
Not sure how it's macho or ego to do a power off landing on a runway, assuming it's easily made?
 
From a Cirrus guy whose buddy just died due to lack of a parachute in a Bonanza...

My buddy, one of the most meticulous pilots ever...newly minted IFR (same time as me)...had to land fast in a field due to lack of parachute. Field ended up having unexpected rocks. He died from blunt force impact, leaving behind kids, fiancé, etc. No matter how skilled are careful we are, this hobby carries risks. For those who can humble themselves and who have the money, the parachute can literally be a life saver. RIP, Scott.

Craig said:
Cirrus on takeoff out of Addison ended up landing via chute this morning. Landed in someone's parking lot. Looks decent until you notice that the airframe is sitting on a partially crunched landing gear.
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/p...e-attempting-to-land-at-addison/287-599537457
Click to expand...
 
Hang 4 said:
Not sure how it's macho or ego to do a power off landing on a runway, assuming it's easily made?
Click to expand...
It's not necessarily.

The ego/macho comes into play when you say at 1500' or so, when you aren't in an ideal position, but you let your ego convince you that you can still pull it off and don't need a chute.

I do enough power off 180s in a few different airplanes on a regular basis that as long as I can get the airplane to a tight downwind key position to a paved runway at 1000-1500', I'm going to choose not to pull and fly it down.

But, if I'm not absolutely positive I'm going to be able to make it and not come up short/land too long, I'm pulling and folks who weren't in the cockpit can debate all they want on the internet.
 
Fearless Tower said:
It's not necessarily.


But, if I'm not absolutely positive I'm going to be able to make it and not come up short/land too long, I'm pulling and folks who weren't in the cockpit can debate all they want on the internet.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, there was a comment about getting over an airport at 1,500 and pulling. In that situation, if you are over an airport at 1,500 agl, I really have a hard time seeing the chute as the better option. BTW, I think the chutes are a great idea and if there was an option for one on my plane, I would seriously consider it. I just don't see it as the best option vs a makeable engine off landing.
 
If over an airport at 1500 AGL I also would have a hard time seeing using the chute. Once you pull the chute you are at the mercy of the wind with no control.
 
hawk25u said:
If over an airport at 1500 AGL I also would have a hard time seeing using the chute. Once you pull the chute you are at the mercy of the wind with no control.
Click to expand...

How about 1500 AGL over an airport with a 1,800' runway that has a huge cliff on the approach end (20 knot wind straight down the runway).

Still having a hard time?

Maybe forget the runway and aim for some flat open terrain and pull the chute.
 
eman1200 said:
I’m not so sure....fire and smoke rise, those marks are facing downwards. I think the side of the cowl may have dug into that hole in the ground you see just next to the plane. If the fire was in flight or while floating down under BRS, the marks should go up but they don’t. But detective @tawood could debunk that theory quickly.
Click to expand...

They go upwards unless there is a 100mph breeze blowing on them, kinda like the wind does inside of an engine cowling, blowing from the top down . . . .
 
hindsight2020 said:
I don't think so. If you get perfectly impaled under canopy, it's just not your day.
#c'est_la_vie
Click to expand...
There was an FB-111 cockpit that came down under canopy, crew capsule ejection. Landed in an apartment complex just out side the base. Impaled on a small tree, came up through the floor. I forget, but I think they both survived. Pease AFB, NH. I’ll have to google it.
 
Hang 4 said:
Not sure how it's macho or ego to do a power off landing on a runway, assuming it's easily made?
Click to expand...
I don't fly a Cirrus so this is strictly academic in my case. But for me, its neither macho nor ego. For me it would be a choice based on comfort level with the uncontrollable variables of each option. Here is some of my thought process.
1. When you pull the chute, you become a passenger. In a power loss at altitude situation you've got time to pick your pull spot. But once you pull, you're a passenger. And I know from my banner towing days that its not hard to hit a drop spot when you're letting go of the banner as its 30'-40' agl. But I've had them inadvertently let go from 800'-900' agl and they NEVER end up where you think they're going to end up when you first feel it let go. I was once flying for a research project for a major aerospace developer whose name may or may not rhyme with mockheed lartin. It involved towing a sock with metal in it behind the plane on a couple hundred feet of rope at 9k' so they could test some radar on it. They might be good at building rockets but they kind of sucked at building tow socks. The sock got to twisting behind the plane and twisted itself up enough that it finally snapped the rope and fell from 9k'. I dove after it and followed it so we would know where it landed. It ended up about 20 miles from where it let go.

2. An engine out Cirrus is still perfectly controllable. Yes, power off landings are different than power on. But power off landings are something that can be practiced. Will it be different with the prop stopped? Yep. But that won't change things any more so or less so than simply having a bit more or less head wind on any given day or being a bit closer or farther from max gross on any given day and most pilots seem to adjust their approaches in those situations just fine without even thinking about it. When I flew jumpers, I'd go to idle power at altitude every time and would never touch the power until taxiing off the runway and never had a problem hitting the numbers every time. Even with allowing for other traffic doing stupid pilot tricks in the pattern with me. I'm not saying that to brag. I'm saying it because honestly it just wasn't that hard. There is nothing stopping anyone from pulling power to idle abeam the numbers regularly to practice power off approaches and landings. Add to that the fact that in an engine out situation, the goal is to get it on a runway but just getting it inside the airport fence is perfectly acceptable. Depending on the airport in question, there can be lots of level cut grass available that will work just fine in a pinch.

The bottom line is having that red handle available in the Cirrus is a wonderful thing. And I would not hesitate to use it if other options disappeared. But based on what I've seen, I'd rather remain in control of the airframe all the way to touchdown if at all possible. When you're descending through 1500 over an airport, its really not hard to know whether or not you're going to be able to get it on a piece of empty level ground or not. If you are, great. If not, time to pull the handle IMO.
 
Stingray Don said:
I have a 172, so the chute is not an option. If I had a chute, I would use it for an engine failure as long as I had the required altitude. At 10,000', I would take time to troubleshoot and try to get the engine restarted, but, failing that, I would pull even if within gliding range of a runway. If I pull the chute, I will live to fly another day. If I botch the power-off approach (which I am perfectly capable of) then my flying days may end. I'm not risking my neck to protect the insurance company's plane.
Click to expand...
Makes sense to do what you feel best. Though you might consider aiming for a mid-field touchdown in a 172, even on a very short runway. If you come up a bit short, you're still on the runway. Land a bit long, well, you can walk away from a 172 forced landing in the length of an average driveway - it's also an easy airplane to spot land, and it's something fun to practice. With my luck, I'd pull the chute and descend into a power substation, or a hazardous waste containment pond. Or a Senate confirmation hearing.
 
That engine fire happened while he/she was climbing. Ugh. glad they are ok!
 
And I got mocked for making a funny about a hypothetical Cirrus pilot drifting down from cruise altitude under canopy and landing on a runway.

:rolleyes::D

Doesn’t matter what you fly, know your options when the big spinny thing quits. I think that’s something most of us could agree on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top