Dejavu

I guess it just comes down to the pilots judgement in this case.

bliddel

Yes, judgement always plays a huge part.

How about this for a theory? Perhaps the stall speed of an aircraft should have a bearing on whether or not one should pull the chute? The logic being that if your aircraft wing stalls at a speed that would be fatal in a collision with ground obstacles, then unless you can be sure of avoiding said obstacles, you should pull the chute? (assuming you have one)?

You don't see many fighter jets landed dead stick. A fellow tried it a year or two ago near Mirimar NAS, with fatal results not only to himself but also people on the ground. Very sad.

But again, high stall speed? Pull chute (or eject over unpopulated area). Slow stall speed in acceptable visibility and terrain? Go for it.

tomgoodman

Here's a HUD view of a successful F-16 dead stick:

F16 true engine out dead stick landing - YouTube

cardiomd

I was pretty close to buying one of these not long ago (gently used SR20, almost brand new). IIRC the POH regarding chute is very "hedgy" and has a lot of language like "the decision to deploy the chute will depend on numerous factors including airspeed and altitude, conditions of flight, alternatives, etc. etc." I believe it was about 500 ft to activate from cruise type speeds and approx. 1000 ft vertical from extremely low speed until chute activation, but don't take these numbers without double checking.

Yes yes yes. This plane has a cruise of 155 knots, significantly faster than my 182 despite the 182 being more powerful engine. I actually found it a bit scary, it would have been my first low wing plane, but I wasn't used to the effects a low wing has, including "simple" stuff like significant changes in your obstructed vision in different situations, so I decided to stick with the 182 as it retains more of the trainer than high-performance heritage.

172/182 are hard to spin, and have such gentle characteristics. You'd have to work pretty hard to lose control of that aircraft. I only went up for an hour in a SR20 so I'm no expert, but there is much more to the plane IMO and started to remind me of a bonanza in its low speed behavior.

I regret not giving it more of a chance but I really felt that risk is determined by the pilot, not by presence of a big parachute, and I'd be safer in the high wing that I now have hundreds of hours in... oh well.

That field looks mighty fine for a deadstick landing. Not sure I would have pulled chute either even if had option.

Heh, it would probably increase the premiums if people think they can be more aggressive because of the chute backup. But the real answer is I'm not sure. I'd be interested if anybody has installed one and what their experience was like.

Phantom Flyer

The most important thing to remember is that every situation is different. I'm not a big proponent of just "pulling the chute" whenever something goes wrong. In my 900+ hours of flying the Cirrus series, I found that it handled well at low speeds and we had to perform numerous "dead stick" landings during training. Granted, they were to a runway but slow speed handling was good. You're correct James, it is a high performance aircraft and the reason that there have been many Cirrus accidents is because of pilots with a "small logbook and a huge wallet". That's from the Cirrus sales rep.

I found myself flying home one evening in the middle of winter with a solid 200' ceiling at both the departure and arrival airports. There I was at 7,000 ft. on a moon lit starry night flying along with a solid layer 4,000 ft. below. I thought to myself, if this engine quits, I'm screwed and there the parachute would have been the only choice.

Still a great handling aircraft and the autoflight system was excellent.

See ya Mates

cardiomd

Aviation has had no problem shrinking my wallet.

jonnyjetprop

Something to keep in the back of your mind. No pilot or passenger has been killed when the chute was deployed within the operational envelope. While some have died, others have lived when the chute was deployed outside the envelope. (Generally too low)

Now the question. Are you 100% sure you'll survive the off field landing? You don't have the option of taking it low and then pulling. I'm good, but am I 100%? The chute is 100%.

The Cirrus Owners And Pilots Association is pushing for chute first. Their numbers are telling them that half the fatal accidents could have been saved by pulling the chute. So the way they see it, the problem isn't that pilot's are pulling, it's that they are trying to save the plane and killing themselves in the process.

cardiomd

Here are some stats:

Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) Deployment History - Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association

The proper envelope fatality with chute is 0%... but keep in mind if one death occurs next it jumps to about 3% due to the small n. Unfortunately by necessity, the CAPS is particularly ineffective in high accident phases of flight.

That being said I too think the system looks great, especially for complications in IMC, which takes you from very low to high probability of favorable outcome. I want one but can't justify it right now.

JamesNoBrakes

And I believe this as well. It's not that I don't value stick and rudder, but how many pilots can REALLY nail a power-off 180 100 times in a row? And I'm not talking about the same spot, but each time different spot, different conditions, different winds, different aircraft loading etc. If you are truly that good, well you don't need anything, but back in reality, in the situations where you have the CHOICE (so no, I'm not talking about outside of the envelope) it's going to be less risky most of the time and a better "bet" to pull a chute if you have one (or glide to where that's possible). There are few rules that can be applied as "overall", but the whole reason you dead-stick in is because you have no other option and it's the best bet. Now you have a different option. Let's not forget the situations where someone got closer to their intended landing spot, only to notice the powerlines, or striations in the fields, or whatever else wasn't possible 3000' up. You may very well be "committed" at that point.

I think in the land of insurance adjusters, emergency response, and others, they see a successful outcome as more likely if someone pulls the chute.

This should be "what gives me the highest chance of walking away", not "what has the highest chance of saving the aircraft". If the highest chance of walking way HAPPENS to save the aircraft, that's a nice side-benefit, but I'd never endorse that course of action as the primary goal.

Phantom Flyer

Without beating this ol' horse anymore, I'll reiterate that, in my opinion, one takes the course of action that provides the best opportunity for a safe outcome. If there is a place to deadstick the aircraft in; deserted road, field, whatever, I prefer that option. As was previously mentioned, at night in IFR conditions, an entirely different situation and the parachute is probably the only option.

The safety of the pilot and passengers is most important. No question about that. With that said, don't forget that pulling the chute, IF a better option is available, will save the extensive repairs from a chute deployment.again, NOT the primary consideration but a consideration nonetheless.

G'Luck Mates