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.

The ballistic parachutes used on airplanes self-deploy using a rocket. They will work at a much a lower altitude than say a sky-diver's chute.

Just to reiterate, my original intention was not to barbeque the pilot from the article. There were a few things that made me rub my chin and go, "Hmmmmm." I'm more curious as to the broader BRS pilot training and mentality.

I imagine we have all read a few articles on the Cirrus in particular, and what level of safety they are really achieving. I have found that very interesting, and the authors usually have some statistics, but I am curious about the perspectives of those who are actually flying them-or are closely connected to those who are.

My take on Cirrus safety is that it's a high-performance wing. Many pilots flying the airplane do not have experience or the physical ability to fly it safely until later on in their piloting experiences. This creates some huge problems. Getting slow or increasing the angle of attack too much can cause unrecoverable spin situations. Even just getting slow without stalling can cause excessive rates of descent that can kill on a deadstick landing. Going fast because you shouldn't shock-cool the engine and the fact that it just doesn't like to slow down gets you into those panic "oh no!" situations. Even an experienced turbine pilot can get into trouble, if passing of this kind of airplane as "harmless as a 150 and not as complex as what I fly!". Sure, not as complex and doesn't require two pilots, but disregard some fundamental aspects of it and you are in just as bad of a spot as others.

I see this as a general trend with high performance singles. Nothing inherently bad or new, except slicker planes that go fast even with the gear down!, but a general disregard for the piloting skills that are necessary to fly them.

That said, nothing I mentioned above is intended to "blame" anyone, but I do feel that with any real problem, pulling the chute is almost always going to be a better option than dead-sticking it in, even if you do pull it off somehow. It's just not worth the risk. If it was a very slow and docile aircraft, then maybe, but it's composite, not the most crash-worthy, aircraft are notoriously un-crash-worthy to start with, and so on...

Besides, this is what insurance is for. If something really did fail or someone else was really at fault (improper maintenance that wasn't the pilot's fault, defect or flaw, etc), the insurance company will go after them and you'll get your money. Otherwise, you might as well not insure it...

On the topic of insurance, does anyone know if retro fitting a BRS chute to your aircraft (C-172 etc.) reduce insurance premiums?

Can't speak for everyone, but my training was to pull it as the last, best option. Not exactly last resort, but definitely not pull first, ask questions later (e.g., engine failure over the mountains at night, structural failure or other loss of control, pilot incapacitation, etc.). Situations where coming down with a forward airspeed equal to the local wind speed seemed preferable to the alternative.

I always felt quite safe flying that plane. I enjoyed the performance and handling. Never felt like loss of control was an issue, even at low speeds. A solid, stable platform, with a bonus that most planes don't have, just in case.

Regarding a few unknowns I saw mentioned in the thread... IIRC Vs0 is about 65-70 KIAS, Vg is 88 KIAS. Descent under canopy is about 1100 fpm depending on density altitude, and feels like a fall from about 10 feet high. Minimum suggested altitude for deployment is 1000 AGL, but deployment has been accomplished in less than 400 ft. The landing gear is designed to absorb the shock and give way upon impact. The seats have a special honeycomb material in them to further absorb impact shock and prevent back injuries. Oh, and there are/were shops performing composite repairs.

Looks like he glided to a very empty field . Lol

I wish my friend Brian P Quinn had had a parachute on November 6. The PT-6 in his Cessna 208 seized, spewing oil over his windshield. Despite this, he put his aircraft on the ground just fine, but landed long, and hit a tree that he surely couldn't see.

Would he have used a chute, had it been available? I don't know, but I do know had he used a chute, he'd probably be alive today.

If I was single-engine out in zero visibility, I think I’d pull the handle.

Just My Opinion
 

I'll add my two cents to this discussion.

I have flown both the SR-20 and SR-22 in a Part 135 charter operation. I ended up with a total of about 900 hours in Cirrus aircraft. I loved flying the aircraft and if it wasn't for the price tag, I'd own one by now.

One thing to keep in mind, once the decision is made to pull the handle and deploy the parachute, the pilots become passengers and are just along for the ride. Every situation is different but my thoughts are it's better to dead stick one to a field or road if at all possible. The aircraft handles beautifully at low speeds and one should be able to walk away from a dead stick landing. As for impact forces, we were told in training that the impact for a parachute landing is equivalent to jumping off an 8 ft. ladder.

I can't attest to emergencies in the aircraft because I never had one. Great IFR aircraft and it handled well in even a moderate crosswind.

G'Day Mates:)

Yeah for sure . Sorry for the loss of your friend .

I know of more cirrus aircraft that spun into the ground than "handled beautifully at slow speed" and came in for a successful emergency landing following a loss of power or getting too slow. This isn't a cub with a little bit of fuel and a dead stick landing should only be attempted in some rare cases IMO when you have the option for a guaranteed "walk-away". Too many idealistic things we teach and practice with emergency landings that don't always happen in real life.

Call me scared or whatever, but I don't see as many successful off airport landings of aircraft like the cirrus. Not that it can't be done, but I'd take a 95% chance of walking away as opposed to an 80% chance of safely sticking the landing and waking away with no more injury comparatively.

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

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.

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

F16 true engine out dead stick landing - YouTube

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.

Still Love that Aircraft
 

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:)

Aviation has had no problem shrinking my wallet. :cool:

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.

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. :(

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.

Save Our Butts, then Our Chute
 

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:)