When To Pull The Chute

C

CTLSi

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
929
Display Name
Display name:
CTLSi
The subject is central to the Flight Design, Cirrus, Icon and Pipistrel aircraft. These companies put BRS chutes into every product they make. Cirrus is even putting one into their new Cirrus SR50 Light Jet just coming to market.

But the burning question still remains - when should the BRS be deployed?

Those who own aircraft with BRS must still be wondering since nothing in company literature, in general aviation discussion, or in the aircraft AOI, or POH from any of these companies seems to offer emphatic and consistent answers. But when, really, is the device to be used?

The chief engineer at Pipistrel was asked that question when he was discussing their new product the Panthera. His answer seemed to congeal once and for all why the chute is there, and when to pull it without hesitation.

1. over water. water 'landings' are as hazardous as anything attempted off a runway. flipping over and breaking up, or worse, hitting someone or something on a lake will lead to a flip-over or fuel breach when a wing breaks off. if an engine goes out over water, pull the chute. at least you will have a chance to swim to shore.

2. at night. I kinda laughed when I saw the FAA material discuss the idea that one should do an emergency landing in an area where there are few to no lights. the idea is to protect people and property on the ground. and of course, once close enough to the ground to see what little surprise awaits in a darkened field will no doubt be a disappointment and a bad night out. pulling the chute over a darkened area that 'appears' somewhat flat is a better risk.

3. mid air collision. probably the best reason to have a BRS is if/when a mid-air results in enough plane left to crash to the ground. those without a chute will die. those with a chute at least have a fighting chance to get back to the ground in the 'egg' with the chute nicely deployed and getting your rear back to mommy Earth in a better than even chance of survival.

Of course for those of us flying day VFR and over roads, the first resort is to glide and land. That much is not really arguable.
 
I'm used to having it deploy automatically after I step off the loading ramp, but that's just me.
 
Unless I'm doing a high pull, I normally pull at 2k ;)

As for trees or water or a very urban area with no place to put her down, yeah pull the chute.

For night, that depends, I had a failure at night and didnt even scratch the plane.

I wouldn't make a sweeping decision to always pull at night, if you within gliding distance of an airport, or have a full moon and a well lit empty highway, well lit empty soccer field, etc.
 
Wouldn't the risk of injury/death hitting unseen wires on the highway/soccer field be greater than the risk of landing via chute?

Yes, risk of damage to the aircraft is far less, especially if you don't hit wires, but it would seem you'd be trading some personal safety for safety of the airframe.
 
The answer is "See what the options are and use the best one for the moment.
 
CTLSi said:
Those who own aircraft with BRS must still be wondering since nothing in company literature, in general aviation discussion, or in the aircraft AOI, or POH from any of these companies seems to offer emphatic and consistent answers.
Click to expand...

Cirrus, for one, has many pages devoted to the chute in the POH, including a list of deployment scenarios.

14906005506_69042d4663_z.jpg
 
I will bow out of this discussion now, since the topic has been discussed ad nauseum on this site and elsewhere. The "search" function would serve one well in that regard.

In closing, I will again link to this video by Rick Beach which analyzes Cirrus CAPS events in detail. Well worth a watch if you fly a Cirrus or any plane with BRS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc6v-hWCSqc
 
When you pull the chute, you are along for the ride. If the plane is controllable before pulling the chute, as in an engine out, one may have desirable options one cedes after pulling the cord.
 
jnmeade said:
When you pull the chute, you are along for the ride. If the plane is controllable before pulling the chute, as in an engine out, one may have desirable options one cedes after pulling the cord.
Click to expand...

True. But I don't think anyone has died after a successful chute deployment. (?)

The same cannot be said for attempted forced landings.

It would be a hard decision to make and I'm honestly not sure what the correct answer would be.
 
dans2992 said:
True. But I don't think anyone has died after a successful chute deployment. (?)

The same cannot be said for attempted forced landings.

It would be a hard decision to make and I'm honestly not sure what the correct answer would be.
Click to expand...

The correct answer will lie in where you live and fly and the type of terrain and what your emergency is. If the emergency is in IMC, the way I see it your best option will almost always be to pull, same for night. Day VFR will be more dependent on the terrain as to which option is best.

I would say from the record of accidents and outcomes, at least in the Cirrus line, the default option should be to pull. Regardless the circumstance, you'll likely survive.

The more important question to actually ask is the opposite one, "When should I NOT pull?" For me the one I come up with is, "When on fire."
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
Due to the nature of the impact, unlikely to have been an intentional pull.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you'd think that. The possibily of an inadvertant chute deployment is even more scary. It takes 45 pounds of pressure and two inches of travel on the chute actuator to get the thing to fire.

I'm trying to figure out what marketing weaseling Cirrus uses to deny the Boulder incident (the statement you made originally they have on their site marked "as of jan 2014").

In any case, I think the math shows that descending under canopy actually gets you on the ground quicker than gliding down, and with less fanning of the flames.
Click to expand...

What crazy math is that. The rate of descent under caps is about 1500 fpm.
An emergency descent under control can be much more than that. Inflight fire is one of the most scary things that can happen. You want that plane on the ground NOW , not at the next airport, not floating down under a canopy, NOW. I've had one friend who had seconds after exiting his burning Navion before the thing was fully involved.


However, Cirrus has worked all the angles. They're materials and training courses tell you exactly at what times you want to fly the plane and when you want to pull the handle. The one statistic that remains is more people likely should have pulled the handle and have needlessly perished than people who perished because they did pull the handle.

For example, for engine failures, Cirrus tells you if you are too low don't pull. If you're at a moderate altitude and there's a runway you can make, don't pull. Otherwise pull.

There are plenty of cases that probably are not survivable without CAPS. Spatial disorientation by a non-instrument competent pilot in IMC is one. Serious mechanical failure (there was one where bad maintenance caused an aileron to depart the aircraft).

Then there's the whole middle range...things where the aircraft might be flyable / recoverable and then you have to quaffle on risk. Hoewver, the time you make trying to figure something out may eat up your options to do the CAPS pull.


I've never understood the hostility to CAPS. I may joke about it, but if you want a Cirrus, buy a Cirrus. If you don't want CAPS, plenty of good aircraft out there with similar performance specs without them. I find it parallels similar hostility in the woodworking community over the SawStop (a saw that has a flesh sensor that fires a chunk of aluminum into the blade). If you don't want it, plenty of other saws on the market (I actually own one of these, flesh sensor not withstanding it's a great saw).
 
LoneAspen said:
Where are they putting the chute? In front of the engine?

Seems like it could get sucked into the engine upon deployment.
Click to expand...

In the nose. Don't ask me how that works, I don't work for Cirrus.
 
flyingron said:
What crazy math is that. The rate of descent under caps is about 1500 fpm.
Click to expand...

Lord I did not want to get sucked in...

Not sure it's so crazy.

Imagine you're at 1,500' and want to be on the ground NOW, as you say.

Under canopy, you're there in one minute, more or less.

Now I suppose you could nose over for a descent rate well in excess of 1,500, maybe by going right up to Vne.

So, let's say you can manage 3,000 fpm. Great! You arrive at the ground in only 30 seconds. Yay!

But you're at Vne! How long will it take to slow down to a reasonable landing speed? I don't know, but it would take a non-trivial amount of time. More than another 30 seconds? Who knows?

Then try the same thing at 3,000'. Two minutes and you're on the ground using CAPS. Diving - quicker or not? Might be a fun exercise for a Cirrus owner, who could let us know.

And maybe there's some "critical altitude" where diving to lose most of it, then slowing to CAPS speed and then pulling would be the most expeditious way down.

Interesting thought experiment nonetheless!
 
Last edited:
I'm not at Vne. I take it you never did the airwork for the commercial checkride. Emergency descents is one of the required knowledge. You'll arrive at the ground quickly and not above Vfe if you do it right.
 
FastEddieB said:
Due to the nature of the impact, unlikely to have been an intentional pull.

In any case, I think the math shows that descending under canopy actually gets you on the ground quicker than gliding down, and with less fanning of the flames.

Back to lurk mode...
Click to expand...

Depends where the flames are, your best option may be to put the nose down for airspeed to try to blow them out or get the heat back from the source. Heck, if the fire is in the wing, with a chute it might be worth it to go for Vne and pull for all you have and try to snap the wings or at least rupture the tanks to get rid of the fuel, then pull the chute. Every emergency has it's own set of circumstances.
 
FastEddieB said:
Lord I did not want to get sucked in...

Not sure it's so crazy.

Imagine you're at 1,500' and want to be on the ground NOW, as you say.

Under canopy, you're there in one minute, more or less.

Now I suppose you could nose over for a descent rate well in excess of 1,500, maybe by going right up to Vne.

So, let's say you can manage 3,000 fpm. Great! You arrive at the ground in only 30 seconds. Yay!

But you're at Vne! How long will it take to slow down to a reasonable landing speed? I don't know, but it would take a non-trivial amount of time. More than another 30 seconds? Who knows?

Then try the same thing at 3,000'. Two minutes and you're on the ground using CAPS. Diving - quicker or not? Might be a fun exercise for a Cirrus owner, who could let us know.

And maybe there's some "critical altitude" where diving to lose most of it, then slowing to CAPS speed and then pulling would be the most expeditious way down.

Interesting thought experiment nonetheless!
Click to expand...

I was taught (during my PP training ) to do a steep spiral . You can get quite a decent rate going while keeping the airspeed down by using induced drag as horizontal lift. I haven't tried it in a while (hey! Something to revisit during my BFR!) but it's fast and not too hard. 60 degree bank and pull. I didn't try to quantify descent rate but I'll give it a shot.

John


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
jsstevens said:
I was taught (during my PP training ) to do a steep spiral . You can get quite a decent rate going while keeping the airspeed down by using induced drag as horizontal lift. I haven't tried it in a while (hey! Something to revisit during my BFR!) but it's fast and not too hard. 60 degree bank and pull. I didn't try to quantify descent rate but I'll give it a shot.

John


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

Trim the plane for your target speed, remove power (or bottom of the green, whatever is called for), put in 60° of bank. You shouldn't have to pull much.
 
flyingron said:
I'm not at Vne. I take it you never did the airwork for the commercial checkride. Emergency descents is one of the required knowledge. You'll arrive at the ground quickly and not above Vfe if you do it right.
Click to expand...

Actually, I did, and taught Commercial applicants to do so over the years as well, though it's been a while - obviously.

A steep spiral simply did not pop into my mind as an option here. If one had the presence of mind to do one while on fire, it might be a better option than the chute.

If anyone has a Cirrus (or other BRS equipped plane) and wants to try different ways to get down, I have a GoPro and it might be fun getting some on "film"! I'm at Copperhill, TN, and have free time while my Sky Arrow awaits new ignition modules.
 
FastEddieB said:
Actually, I did, and taught Commercial applicants to do so over the years as well, though it's been a while - obviously.

A steep spiral simply did not pop into my mind as an option here. If one had the presence of mind to do one while on fire, it might be a better option than the chute.

If anyone has a Cirrus (or other BRS equipped plane) and wants to try different ways to get down, I have a GoPro and it might be fun getting some on "film"! I'm at Copperhill, TN, and have free time while my Sky Arrow awaits new ignition modules.
Click to expand...

Hey, Ed, I thought you were in lurk mode?! :) :)
 
When the plane payment is due, and you find yourself unable to pay it.
 
My flying club recently purchased an SR-20. We are based in MN and took a tour of the Cirrus factory to give our members the opportunity to learn more about our new plane.

Our tour was given by Cirrus's former chief test pilot and he provided some great insight. He stated that in 40% of forced landings, at least one person on the plane will suffer a serious injury (paralysis) or death. Under descent under the canopy, the plane is designed to absorb the impact and they are proud of their safety statistics when the chute is pulled. The carbon fiber landing gear will bend to the point where they impact the bottom of the wing and the seats are 26G crash rated, so this absorbs most of the force. The lack of forward movement on landing minimizes the risk of hitting something head-on.

I think most of the hesitation to pull the chute stems from pilot training. From day one, most of us are trained to establish best glide and look for a safe place to land while attempting to diagnose the problem. Pulling the chute feels like admitting defeat and takes most control away from the pilot, which is just unnatural. As a side note, I have been told that the flight surfaces still have some limited control under canopy which allows the plane to be maneuvered towards a safe landing area.
 
flyingron said:
I don't know why you'd think that. The possibily of an inadvertant chute deployment is even more scary. It takes 45 pounds of pressure and two inches of travel on the chute actuator to get the thing to fire.
.
Click to expand...

When a Cirrus aircraft gets severed by impact, the result is that the cable gets pulled with considerable force and the rocket is fired. That's why there have been some deployments when a Cirrus crashed. For example, imagine a Cirrus getting spit into two pieces by being severed just behind the wing. This scenario would almost certainly deploy the chute due to pull on the cable.

An analysis on COPA showed that, in a Cirrus, the fastest way down is to dive till you reach about 2,000 feet AGL, pull out of the dive and deploy the chute.
 
By the way, no one has addressed the question of WHO deploys the chute? The PIC if capable? What if the pilot insists on a gliding landing into a pine forest and you believe the chute would be safer. Would you pull the chute over the PIC objections?
The question can be raised any time two or more conscious people are in the airplane. If there is a difference of opinion on the danger level, does the one most afraid get the right to override the other?
 
jnmeade said:
By the way, no one has addressed the question of WHO deploys the chute? The PIC if capable? What if the pilot insists on a gliding landing into a pine forest and you believe the chute would be safer. Would you pull the chute over the PIC objections?
The question can be raised any time two or more conscious people are in the airplane. If there is a difference of opinion on the danger level, does the one most afraid get the right to override the other?
Click to expand...

If you have that kind of problem with someone in the right seat then you should also worry that person would stomp on the rudders and yank on the stick/yoke too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top