Oscar Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 As idle rumination, not intended to inflame the ether (though even 'g'day can be taken the wrong way by some), I rather doubt that this pilot in this situation had much in the way of options other than the 'chute, and it's quite possibly a paradigm case of using one being the difference between a good outcome and a possibly very, very bad one. Personally, I'm not enamoured of them BUT if I routinely flew over unlandable country, I'd seriously consider installing one. Preferably, I believe, to NOT be in a position where they are the resource of last recourse, and certainly, to me it's bad airmanship to wittingly put oneself in the situation where one is relying on the red handle if there are other sensible choices. If one reads the ATSB report I referenced earlier, a pilot who: a) takes off in an aircraft that has already exhibited unusually high oil consumption the day before the flight; b) does not abide by the POH regarding the minimun recommended oil level for operation for topping-up before take-off, and c) flies for several hours with dropping oil pressure being reported without making a precautionary landing - indeed, overflying a suitable airfield when the reported oil pressure was seriously low, despite the POH instructions - and then elects to pull the handle rather than attempting a landing in a large, cleared, flat paddock - would (I suspect) have some discussion with his insurance company before they wrote out a cheque. The 'chute doesn't save the aircraft from major damage; both the photos in the ATSB report and the media reports from the Lawson crash show that the Cirrus undercart does NOT withstand landing under the chute. You get to walk away from a wrecked aircraft. That's certainly better than NOT getting to walk away. Is it always the best possible outcome of a problem? HMMMM. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Oscar, Haven't looked in to it too much detail other than the media reports, have looked at quite a few Cirrus accidents and chute deployments over the years though and obviously the aircraft has a few issues when the noise stops or the aircraft stalls and spins for Cirrus to require the chute to be fitted to them. They are a high performance aircraft and I guess you need to be well ahead of the aircraft at all times. Chutes are not designed to save the plane but more so the passengers and most aircraft fitted with them will quite often suffer some serious damage to the airframe after activation. Alf 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Continental reliability in these aircraft seems to have slipped a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 So your telling me if the aircraft looses the engine it enters an uncontrolled stall and spin...???!!! Pretty piss-poor design if that is the case. Aren't these things certified in the states in the normal or utility category . Can't imagine how that one got by the FAA..................Some one mentioned on FB that if he had attempted an emergency landing and did damage, the insurance company wouldn't pay out. If he deployed the chute they would !...in the flight manual it says to deploy the chute if the engine fails ?...........the insurance companies must love this aircraft.........Maj.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barramundi Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 interesting view points around... i am new to flying and there is a lot i need to understand ( and i mean the basics) but why is there a debate almost about if the pilots action to deploy the chute unnecessary, considering the outcome was all POB survived. from my little experience and little knowledge about the incident is this; 1. single engine aircraft flying relatively close to ground i.e not giving himself sufficient height (for whatever reason,airspace restriction). 2.flying over densely forested area. 3. aircraft/engine maintenance/reliability issues. I'm sure a detail analysis will eventuate but this is what concerns me... I'm happy for the pilot and his passengers can live to tell the tale! regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 So your telling me if the aircraft looses the engine it enters an uncontrolled stall and spin...???!!! Pretty piss-poor design if that is the case. Aren't these things certified in the states in the normal or utility category . Can't imagine how that one got by the FAA..................Some one mentioned on FB that if he had attempted an emergency landing and did damage, the insurance company wouldn't pay out. If he deployed the chute they would !...in the flight manual it says to deploy the chute if the engine fails ?...........the insurance companies must love this aircraft.........Maj.... I aint telling you nothing Maj:beg: Must be a great plane if the manual says pull da handle when da spinny thing stops. Alf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 I think whoever "Mr Bligh" is his negative and in my opinion stupid comments are very typical of the this industry as a whole. The fact remains...it is 90% certain this chute deployment saved lives and damage... yet he still mumbles some rubbish knocking it!!!??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 'chute. Short for Parachute. Not Shute.Really worried about Cirrus pilots and their instructors. I don't think even one has been reported to have been successfully dead sticked after an engine failure, they seem to immediately go into spin entry. Then how do they land succesfully? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Can someone knowledgeable let me know... Is it safer to pull BRS or perform a forced landing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Can someone knowledgeable let me know... Is it safer to pull BRS or perform a forced landing? Shags, It all depends on the circumstances, terrain your flying over, VFR in to IMC, aircraft type your flying, structural failure ect. Cirrus has a problem when in a spin as it may not recover hence the chute fitment to them. A BRS is not fail safe either as it is a possible 2nd chance if it fires as it should. I would say a well controlled force landing would be the safer option if a suitable landing option was available. Alf 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Can someone knowledgeable let me know... Is it safer to pull BRS or perform a forced landing? Shags, there are so many variables to that decision, all constantly changing. Both have distinct advantages and disadvantages. It ultimately becomes a decision the pilot makes. Right or wrong, only time will tell........ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keenaviator Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 I know a bloke who flies one from a 385 metre strip, fence to fence. I reckon he must have the slow flight phase pretty sorted out or he would have broken it a long time ago. He doesn't use the chute to land there either! Laurie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keenaviator Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 He can afford to Laurie as he only paid $20,000 for that sr22 so if he hits the fence he can simply walk away!no joke people !!!! Ah, you know him too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Any more at that price? Or was it a rebuild? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Can someone knowledgeable let me know... Is it safer to pull BRS or perform a forced landing? Damned good question, Shags. If you pull the handle on a BRS they claim it will deploy in under 2 seconds. (That means you need to be a few hundred feet up for it do you any good.) Then you are swinging around under a canopy; you have no control over where it goes and you come down fast. They depend on the undercarriage to absorb much of the impact, which could be worse than a controlled crash-landing. I would only pop my 'chute if the aircraft was uncontrollable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Which leads to the question, does having a BRS mean you would be too tempted to pull the chute instead of looking for an appropriate place to landing. Anyway, sorry might be a little off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Ah, you know him too! I know who your talking about, he has been to YWSL a couple of times, his strip comes in over a cemetery if I recall right. Alf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 I don't mind the idea of a BRS, and by all accounts it seems the pilot did what he really had to do. I'm really glad the outcome was a good one for the occupants in the end. Unfortunately I just can't say the same about the Cirrus in any respect! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 If your interested in stats for the Cirrus The Cirrus models take up a couple of pages for an aircraft type in the safety database since 2002, taken a few lives in the process. http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=SR22&page=1 Alf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 An awful lot of fatalities in that accident list in just one model which is relatively new. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 An awful lot of fatalities in that accident list in just one model which is relatively new. Which is a major reason why my apparently confusingly-worded earlier post alluded to the idea that pulling the 'chute was the best option for the pilot in the circumstances if the thing had, as reported, started to depart from what the pilot considered to be 'controlled flight' (and it doesn't really matter whether that was a spiral dive or spin entry in this context, what matters is whether the pilot felt it was going out of his control). You have the situation where an aircraft is notorious for a fatality rate of roughly twice that of comparable aircraft and the statistics are out there to support that. The company that makes that aircraft proudly boasts that with the use of the 'chute, your chances (statistically) of being killed are about halved - or, put another way, by using the chute you bring yourself back to just an average chance of being killed. To me, that would make the presence of the big red handle in that particular aircraft far more of a 'primary safety' element than it would be in something that had a better history of incident survivability. To put it another way, if you have a reasonable fear that the damn thing is more likely than most to kill you UNLESS you pull the big red handle, wouldn't you put that option on the front burner if things go pear-shaped? In a different aircraft, you might (probably would and should) look for all other options before deciding 'it's this, or nothing'. In say a Jab. 430, the nearby golf-course might have been a feasible option, knowing that the thing would almost certainly end up somewhat damaged but also knowing they offer pretty good secondary safety. In a Maule, it would possibly be no more worry than having run out of beer and stopping by the 18th hole to grab a few cans from the Clubhouse... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic36 Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 In say a Jab. 430, the nearby golf-course might have been a feasible option, knowing that the thing would almost certainly end up somewhat damaged but also knowing they offer pretty good secondary safety. But if he had a Cammit engine he could have just flown on by waving to the golfers 1 3 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crezzi Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Which leads to the question, does having a BRS mean you would be too tempted to pull the chute instead of looking for an appropriate place to landing. Or a bigger question - does having a BRS fitted cause pilots to fly differently ? Cheers John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Or a bigger question - does having a BRS fitted cause pilots to fly differently ?Cheers John Yes I knew one guy who had one on his trike so he could fly over any sort of terrain and would not have to worry about having to do an emergency landing if the noise stops. These guys don't seem to consider the possibility of coming down on something uncomfortable like a spike in the wrong place. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tadge Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Quick question for anyone with SR22 time. What does the RFM ECL read in regards to engine failure? (i.e. pull chute as standard procedure or as last resort?) Is there any published stats that suggest fatal injuries sustained after a chute deployment at altitude? Regards, Brendon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now