SR 22 down

[pmanton]

A news article mentioned that an SR-22 was down in northern AZ. Pilot OK.

Picture showed it upside down with landing gear mangled and chute deployed. It looks pretty well totaled. How did it wind up upside down with mangled gear if it came down under the chute?

 

[Inverted]

Maybe he didn't deploy it quick enough, or he deployed it too fast.

On the other hand, it looks pretty good with no gear.

 

[Mafoo]

On the other hand, it looks pretty good with no gear.

Some with the name Inverted would say that.

 

[dell30rb]

Parachuted down, strong winds at the surface. Hit hard with a lot of ground speed due to the wind, ripped gear off bounced and flipped. The chute probably dragged it over in the wind

My guess anyway

 

[JHW]

the gear is supposed to collapse to absorb energy

 

[EppyGA]

Catastrophic oil failure, interesting.

 

[rbridges]

I think it's awesome that the cabin held its shape well enough to save the pilot.

 

[spiderweb]

Another save, credit to BRS. Who knows, maybe the pilot could have deadsticked it to the very same field. What we DO know is the chute served it's purpose.

 

[DavidWhite]

And it didn't catch on fire, kudos!

 

[gprellwitz]

And it didn't catch on fire, kudos!

Unlike the 172 that was also reported recently. Unfortunately, that one had 3 fatalities in addition to the fire.

 

[N801BH]

A news article mentioned that an SR-22 was down in northern AZ. Pilot OK.

Picture showed it upside down with landing gear mangled and chute deployed. It looks pretty well totaled. How did it wind up upside down with mangled gear if it came down under the chute?

Ok. So how do you get the doors open when its upside down?

 

[wabower]

I'm guessing forcefully when you're thinking it will soon turn you into a crispy critter if you don't.

Ok. So how do you get the doors open when its upside down?

 

[Silvaire]

Wayne's got a point. I recently lost two friends who crashed in a Glasair and although the post crash fire had nothing to do with their demise it is quite apparent that glass burns much better than aluminum.

 

[douglas393]

Glass burn better than aluminum but people burn just the same. A fire ball has no clue whether you got fiberglass around you or aluminum and will consume you just the same. Though on second thought there is a YouTube video I saw about a year ago of a cirrus with it's chute deployed burning on it's way down, aluminum would not burn that way.

 

[Silvaire]

...How did it wind up upside down with mangled gear if it came down under the chute?

There aren't many of us here that have descended in a full sized airplane under a parachute.

I mean, any hands?

So I can't speak as an "expert" but I can guess a few things.

First of all, once you pull that BRS handle you are no longer a pilot, you are now a passenger. Depending on the terrain below you may now have less chance of surviving than if you had flown it to the crash site under your own control. There really is absolutely no justified reason to pull that handle outside of complete surrender, the point where there is no other choice.

I understand the idea of having such a device as a last resort and I support it in that aspect but doesn't it seem like the marketing is pushing it as something you'd really like (or need) to have if you were to venture up in one of these "dangerous" little airplanes?

I mean, look at the cost of a BRS and add in the extra fuel burn costs for carrying it around for 20 years and compare that to the cost of some good instruments or other mechanical or situational awareness gadgets or good old maintenance and see who comes out on top for "saving lives"

 

[Silvaire]

Not a bad guess, but I believe the winds were calm at the closest airport when the accident occurred, but picked up later.

What are you looking for? Once the chute was deployed there was only meteorological conditions and terrain to blame for the outcome.

 

[yakdriver]

By the looks of the field he landed in if he would have not pulled the chute and executed a landing it probably would not have hurt the airplane at all. That field looks huge and pretty smooth. Don

 

[dell30rb]

By the looks of the field he landed in if he would have not pulled the chute and executed a landing it probably would not have hurt the airplane at all. That field looks huge and pretty smooth. Don

I thought the same thing. Though its very survivable there is a good chance a chute pull would have you stuck in a tree

 

[LearDriver]

Thankfully the chute worked. Can you imagine the damage that the airplane would have received by doing an off airport landing in a grassy field like the one in the photos?

 

[Dav8or]

Unlike the 172 that was also reported recently. Unfortunately, that one had 3 fatalities in addition to the fire.

And the 172 accident involved hitting a truck on the runway. It's as though they're going out there and doing stuff just so we can debate it on forums.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Thankfully the chute worked. Can you imagine the damage that the airplane would have received by doing an off airport landing in a grassy field like the one in the photos?

You read my mind!!!!

 

[Jim Logajan]

Thankfully the chute worked. Can you imagine the damage that the airplane would have received by doing an off airport landing in a grassy field like the one in the photos?

The pilot walked away alive. Live with it. You don't know if the pilot could see the ground conditions when the catastrophic oil failure happened. In any case, second guessing their actions because you are sure there was a better way to survive is potentially dangerous if it leads to them to feel peer pressure that might delay or cancel an otherwise better decision.

 

[Dynasty22]

There is a hammer in the center console to knock out the window and get out that way.

 

[funkster9]

I love the SR22 and the safety the chute offers, but Im not pulling the ripchord with that kind of real estate below me. Of course assuming the oil covered windscreen doesnt apply and all control surfaces functional.

 

[Mafoo]

I love the SR22 and the safety the chute offers, but Im not pulling the ripchord with that kind of real estate below me. Of course assuming the oil covered windscreen doesnt apply and all control surfaces functional.

Not sure what I would do. My first thought is I would land it.

However if the odds of dying if I tried to land it was 5%, and the odds of dying if I pulled the chute was 3%, I am not sure the insurance companies money is worth a 1 out of 50 chance I am going to die.

 

[Dav8or]

I thought everybody agreed that in the event of a real emergency, the first thing you should recognize is the fact that the insurance company then owns the plane? Do you guys really think that there would be no damage to the plane by touching down on that rough field at what, 75-80mph? If this field is such a piece of cake, why in the world do they bother to make tundra tires?

Seriously, if you have a plane equipped with a parachute, using it in this situation is absolutely the right call and not using it would be just plain stupid. This pilot performed perfectly in this situation.

 

[LDJones]

If I see wide open fields I know I am fully capable of landing in, that seems a better option than playing russian roulette on where a parachute might deposit me.

At night, I'd pull the red handle. But CAVU with that field below me? No way.

 

[DavidWhite]

If I see wide open fields I know I am fully capable of landing in, that seems a better option than playing russian roulette on where a parachute might deposit me.

At night, I'd pull the red handle. But CAVU with that field below me? No way.

+1, I feel the same way

 

[N801BH]

A news article mentioned that an SR-22 was down in northern AZ. Pilot OK.

Picture showed it upside down with landing gear mangled and chute deployed. It looks pretty well totaled. How did it wind up upside down with mangled gear if it came down under the chute?

I swear... The more I look at this pic, the more it looks like the pilot tried to land it and chickened out a few seconds before touchdown and pulled the chute.. The forward momentum sheared off the gear and the prop bent on the way over... It just don't look right.

 

[Mafoo]

At night, I'd pull the red handle. But CAVU with that field below me? No way.

Pipistrel is doing something really smart on there new Panthera aircraft. They are adding a chute, that if deployed, doesn't total the aircraft.

Foe me, if am emergency were to take place, the safest avenue to the ground would be the course of action I would wish to take. If landing in that field was it, then cool. But if pulling the chute was it, that's what I would do.

If the damage incurred was going to be 6 one, half dozen the other, I think that's even better. I think at least a few people have died, because they know pulling that handle is an expensive undertaking, and it's a pride thing. If you remove that from the equation, less people will die.

http://www.panthera-aircraft.com/

 

[douglas393]

I thought everybody agreed that in the event of a real emergency, the first thing you should recognize is the fact that the insurance company then owns the plane? Do you guys really think that there would be no damage to the plane by touching down on that rough field at what, 75-80mph? If this field is such a piece of cake, why in the world do they bother to make tundra tires?

Seriously, if you have a plane equipped with a parachute, using it in this situation is absolutely the right call and not using it would be just plain stupid. This pilot performed perfectly in this situation.

I agree. I was taught that my job as PIC is to use evedrything I have available to me to keep the plane flying and get myself and my passengers on the ground safely. This is especially true in an emergency. It is our job as PIC to get ourselves and our passengers down safely. My plane does not have a BRS, but if it did and I felt the need to use it, I would not feel any need to defend my actions more so than what I already said.

I believe it was in the King course where I read something to the effect that if the plane has failed you, your primary job is to get down to the ground safely, you do not owe the plane any loyalty at that point. Replacing or repairing bent metal is relatively easy, not so with bent people.

 

[LDJones]

I agree. I was taught that my job as PIC is to use evedrything I have available to me to keep the plane flying and get myself and my passengers on the ground safely. This is especially true in an emergency. It is our job as PIC to get ourselves and our passengers down safely. My plane does not have a BRS, but if it did and I felt the need to use it, I would not feel any need to defend my actions more so than what I already said.

I believe it was in the King course where I read something to the effect that if the plane has failed you, your primary job is to get down to the ground safely, you do not owe the plane any loyalty at that point. Replacing or repairing bent metal is relatively easy, not so with bent people.

No disagreement. I'd have no problem pulling the handle if there was a 1% better chance of my survival vs. the alternative.

My point is with that field below me I am 99.999% confident I can park it down there safely. I'm less confident of what might happen if the chute takes me into a tree or other object.

The future of the airframe is the least of my concerns.

 

[douglas393]

No disagreement. I'd have no problem pulling the handle if there was a 1% better chance of my survival vs. the alternative.

My point is with that field below me I am 99.999% confident I can park it down there safely. I'm less confident of what might happen if the chute takes me into a tree or other object.

The future of the airframe is the least of my concerns.

No disagreement here.

 

[Jim Logajan]

If I see wide open fields I know I am fully capable of landing in, that seems a better option than playing russian roulette on where a parachute might deposit me.

At night, I'd pull the red handle. But CAVU with that field below me? No way.

Would you do a forced landing in a corn field like this pilot did?:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20090623X33607&key=1

Amazing what a simple ditch will do. If you think those wide open fields of are safe for landing, I can dig up more NTSB reports to show they aren't always what they seem.

According to this study, about 5% of forced landings result in fatalities:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187964

Accordng to an AVweb article linked below, in all cases where the BRS was deployed within its operating window no one has died in the landing, though there have been injuries. (In one case a Cirrus landed on a steep slope of a mountain and slid down about 1/4 mile and was eventually helicoptered out and repaired to flying condition; see comments attached to the article): http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVWebInsider_BRSDiscussion_205999-1.html

5% chance of dying vs close to 0% chance of dying. Hmmm. Better to be a dead PIC than a live parachute passenger, eh?

 

[LDJones]

Survey sample is far too small to derive any concrete conclusions. You know what you'd do. I know what I'd do.

 

[douglas393]

Would you do a forced landing in a corn field like this pilot did?:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20090623X33607&key=1

Amazing what a simple ditch will do. If you think those wide open fields of are safe for landing, I can dig up more NTSB reports to show they aren't always what they seem.

According to this study, about 5% of forced landings result in fatalities:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187964

Accordng to an AVweb article linked below, in all cases where the BRS was deployed within its operating window no one has died in the landing, though there have been injuries. (In one case a Cirrus landed on a steep slope of a mountain and slid down about 1/4 mile and was eventually helicoptered out and repaired to flying condition; see comments attached to the article): http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVWebInsider_BRSDiscussion_205999-1.html

5% chance of dying vs close to 0% chance of dying. Hmmm. Better to be a dead PIC than a live parachute passenger, eh?

I personally find it hard to criticize anyone who has pulled a BRS(see my above post). I do not have one, but if I did I would certainly not hesitate to use it if I felt the need.

I think there are probably a number of cases where the BRS was deployed, where an argument could be made that it was not necessary, but I think for me that is more of an educational opportunity in the realm if what would have I done, rather than a criticism of the pilots' actions.

 

[Jaybird180]

Would you do a forced landing in a corn field like this pilot did?:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20090623X33607&key=1

Amazing what a simple ditch will do. If you think those wide open fields of are safe for landing, I can dig up more NTSB reports to show they aren't always what they seem.

According to this study, about 5% of forced landings result in fatalities:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187964

Accordng to an AVweb article linked below, in all cases where the BRS was deployed within its operating window no one has died in the landing, though there have been injuries. (In one case a Cirrus landed on a steep slope of a mountain and slid down about 1/4 mile and was eventually helicoptered out and repaired to flying condition; see comments attached to the article): http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVWebInsider_BRSDiscussion_205999-1.html

5% chance of dying vs close to 0% chance of dying. Hmmm. Better to be a dead PIC than a live parachute passenger, eh?

Thanks Jim. Was going to add that many Cirri have Ben repaired post-pull and have lived to fly again, but you already said that.

 

[MachFly]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember the single Cirrus forced landing that had no injuries. Usually the engine compartment gets bend down and the firewall gets pushed into the cockpit breaking pilot's legs.
In Cirrus' case if your landing on anything but a runway I think you should pull the chute.

 

[MachFly]

Parachuted down, strong winds at the surface. Hit hard with a lot of ground speed due to the wind, ripped gear off bounced and flipped. The chute probably dragged it over in the wind

My guess anyway

That's what I first thought.



Anyone know the tail #? Can't see it, too small.
I want to look up the NTSB report.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

Here's something to think about:

100% of the chute pulls within the certified envelope (speed less tha 133 kts., altitude > 400 ft. AGL with the plane upright, >900 ft. AGL in a spin, everyone lived. 91% walked away without injury. Outside the envelope, the record is less than 100%, but better than zero. Off the top of my head, one chute was shredded when it was deployed well above red line for the aircraft and in another, a passenger pulled the handle very low and 3 out of 4 lived.

How good are you at off field landings? Are you 100%?

Over half of the fatal Cirrus accidents would have been survivable had the pilot pulled the red handle. The problem is not deploying the chute.

Several planes after chute pulls have been repaired and put back in service. So it's an economic call by your insurance company.

John

No disagreement. I'd have no problem pulling the handle if there was a 1% better chance of my survival vs. the alternative.

My point is with that field below me I am 99.999% confident I can park it down there safely. I'm less confident of what might happen if the chute takes me into a tree or other object.

The future of the airframe is the least of my concerns.