Step 1- Pull the Chute?
 

First Australian Cirrus Chute Pull Ends Well

Anyone see this or other articles on the event? Though we can only see a little bit of background, it looks *pretty* flat. If the airplane is within gliding range of the chute, I'd wager you're within---well gliding range.

I have never flown a Cirrus or any other aircraft with a ballistic recovery chute installed, so I don't know first hand what the training is, or what the de facto chute pulling mentality is. I've heard second hand some 'horror' stories about a sort of 'pull the chute and ask questions later' mentality.

I'm not trying to stir up anger on the forums and I'm glad he commanded his aircraft to a safe outcome--but I am genuinely curious as to what other folks on here think and what you have observed.

Finally, to the guy's credit, he did look for other places to land-"an airstrip or country road to set down on," but he also ended up in what seems to be an open field. Also, I find interesting his qoute, "We were on the ground less than a minute after the oil gauge indicated the problem.'' Wow! (my emphasis added to that qoute)

A parachute landing is probably a more predictably safe outcome than dead-stick into a plowed or rough field...you could nose-over, cartwheel, catch on fire, etc. Also the article didn't say how big the field was either.

I assume the cirrus is designed to not seriously injure the occupants or catch on fire due to a parachute landing, although the airframe is typically destroyed IIRC. It's gonna be rough, but you know about how rough. Deadstick has a lot of variables. I admit I would be more inclined to deadstick it but that's probably just a control thing on my part (as an ex-military jumper, I cringe at the thought of going single-point safe on the main with no reserve)
.
The article said the engine seized, so it wasn't like he gave up altitude or glide distance when he pulled the chute.

.............

He did the right thing. KIAS 133, Mixture, throttle closed. Two handed steady pull down. And you have activated the chute.

"We were on the ground less than a minute after the oil gauge indicated the problem.''

So what is the descent rate of the Cirrus when under "silk"? (I have seen it somewhere but can't remember) Less than a minute so I guess he really wasn't up to high when the oil gauge problem was noticed.

From the photo in the article the land in the background looks nice and flat. Surrounding area would probably be similar so like Rickair I would be flying it down. I flew jumpers and never liked the phrased often used in a fatality report. Impact at line stretch.

Typical descent rate under a round canopy is in the target range of about 22 fps, which is 1300 fpm at impact. For those of us that have done PLF's under round canopies in that descent rate range, it's doable, but also has a high potential for injury. Adding to it the propensity for pendulous action under a round canopy (they tend to "breathe" and spill air), and the impact can be significant. The occupants are seated...but remembering that the flight manual states that deploying the parachute will destroy the aircraft, it ought not be the first choice.

Given a perfectly flyable aircraft, going to the parachute, a distant last choice, is a really foolish act. Did the pilot never make an off-field landing before? Would that be the fault of his instructor, or his own? One's first off-field landing ought not be solo.

The Cirrus was never tested to a landing with occupants under canopy, during certification. Cirrus left that to the customer. A number of the early deployments failed. Many of the deployments to date have been pilots in places they had no business being (over the Canadian rockies at night in a thunderstorm, etc). The airplane is the new Bonanza or 210...attracting customers with more dollars than sense, who see the parachute as making up for good judgement or skill.

An oil pressure indication in a perfectly flyable aircraft...and one throws everything out the window, discards all options and the advantages of controlled flight, for the easy out, a parachute ride.

I have had my fair share of parachute rides, including several reserve rides. I don't know that given an errant instrument indication I'd opt to throw away the airplane and all caution to the wind by deploying a parachute.

The article did say the engine seized. If he was low (sounds like it) he might not have been in a position to glide anywhere. I'd have to know all the factors to judge this guy.

Did the wings seize, too?

Too often the ballistic parachute is used as an excuse for poor judgement. Whether that poor judgement is flying too low or doing something else, that doesn't change the issue of poor judgement.

I've spent a lot of my flying life at low altitude, but have never been in a position where I was too low to make a forced landing off field (I've done that before, following an engine failure at low altitude...crop duster by trade).

Generally the higher the better when it comes to a parachute deployment. If one is too low to glide, one is usually too low to be thinking about using a parachute.

I see lots if cubs and really slow airplanes crash land all the time without killing occupants, but a cirrus is different. You get that wing slow and bad things happen.

One unknown here is the training that this person has received. He might just not be very proficient at doing a PFL and also what does the aircraft OEM say to do in this case. It is quite possible that they say "if in doubt pull the handle".

Sometimes there isn't a right or wrong decision to be made but simply that you must make a decision and see it out until it's conclusion.