CAPS deployment caught on camera near FYV

And, of course, the contest has begun!

Measuring_dick.gif
 
I can't help but notice that they seem to have pulled the chute right near a bunch of nice open fields well within best glide distance of where they came down and hit a car on a busy road.

Nobody was killed or seriously injured so that's what matters. However given the altitude available and landing options in the area I'd hardly declare crashing into a car on a busy road as the amazing save the media is making it out to be.

The chute is a nice feature. I'd rather have one than not. But it seems like they threw a lot of other perfectly good options out the window and instead put people on the ground in danger. They could have gone for one of those nice fields and had plenty of time to pull the chute later if that wasn't going to work.

At the end of the day it's this that I think is the most valid criticism of "the chute" in that people often appear to throw normal emergency procedures drilled during good pilot training out the window and just yank the "we give up please save us" lever. I'm not so sure that's actually increasing safety in many situations, including this one.
 
Last edited:
rocketflyer84 said:
I can't help but notice that they seem to have pulled the chute right near a bunch of nice open fields well within best glide distance of where they came down and hit a car on a busy road.

Nobody was killed or seriously injured so that's what matters. However given the altitude available and landing options in the area I'd hardly declare crashing into a car on a busy road as the amazing save the media is making it out to be.

The chute is a nice feature. I'd rather have one than not. But it seems like they threw a lot of other perfectly good options out the window and instead put people on the ground in danger. They could have gone for one of those nice fields and had plenty of time to pull the chute later if that wasn't going to work.

At the end of the day it's this that I think is the most valid criticism of "the chute" in that people often appear to throw normal emergency procedures drilled during good pilot training out the window and just yank the "we give up please save us" lever. I'm not so sure that's actually increasing safety in many situations, including this one.
Click to expand...

Look at the clouds in the video. Not sure if it was the angle of the video I saw, but they appeared more broken than scattered. Popping out of a deck at 800 AGL does not provide much time to select a good landing spot.

Keep in mind that pilots kill themselves performing "normal emergency procedures" all the time. We read about them on the news. On the flip side, I am unaware of any fatalities caused by a CAPS deployment under recommended deployment conditions. When your survival rate is close to 100% with CAPS, and something significantly less performing "normal emergency procedures", how can you say it doesn't increase safety? How the occupants fare is the correct metric, IMO, not how the aircraft fares.
 
Phoenix said:
CAPS sure did save another pilot.:yes: Saved the pilot from landing on a runway and getting his plane fixed.:lol:
Click to expand...

And they say there's no haters here...

WE have no clue what was happening up there. You were not there, I was not there.
 
Loss of oil pressure means you can't set the prop to coarse pitch, so yep its coming down like a rock.

As for the emergency descent, my guess is the oil pressure dropped and he wanted to get it on the ground as fast as possible.
 
Last edited:
Just to correct some things. This plane has a composite prop that acts like a huge speed brake. The glide ratio with the composite prop is 8.6:1. The glide ratio being reported earlier in this thread is for a non-turbo without the composite prop.

Next, the pilot saw an oil pressure indication problem but the engine was probably running fine until it wasn't. Older Cirrus aircraft had a known issue with the wiring that would cause oil pressure and manifold pressure reading issues. It is possible the pilot turned to the airport as a precautionary measure and was descending for the approach when he realized he couldn't make adequate power and then the engine seized. This is a guess. At that point he lacked altitude and pulled. From other reports everyone walked away with minor scratches at worst.
 
dell30rb said:
Loss of oil pressure means you can't set the prop to coarse pitch, so yep its coming down like a rock.

As for the emergency descent, my guess is the oil pressure dropped and he wanted to get it on the ground as fast as possible.
Click to expand...

That proves it. Variable pitch props are dangerous and should be banned.
 
Maciej said:
It takes a while for an engine to seize without oil in my experience.
Click to expand...

I'll admit to not having experience running an engine out of oil. My point was that he made an initial descent with the engine running fine and may have thought he would make a normal precautionary landing. Hence he bled some altitude. In the end the engine seized and he couldn't make the field.
 
peppy said:
Just to correct some things. This plane has a composite prop that acts like a huge speed brake. The glide ratio with the composite prop is 8.6:1. The glide ratio being reported earlier in this thread is for a non-turbo without the composite prop.

Next, the pilot saw an oil pressure indication problem but the engine was probably running fine until it wasn't. Older Cirrus aircraft had a known issue with the wiring that would cause oil pressure and manifold pressure reading issues. It is possible the pilot turned to the airport as a precautionary measure and was descending for the approach when he realized he couldn't make adequate power and then the engine seized. This is a guess. At that point he lacked altitude and pulled. From other reports everyone walked away with minor scratches at worst.
Click to expand...

Good comments.

Let's see what the final report says, but it looks like the big lesson here seems to reiterate what was drilled into me during pilot training. If the aircraft has an issue then unless it's on fire or has other issues that mean you must get on the ground ASAP stay as high as you can as long as you can, even if that means arriving at the airport with several thousand feet to kill. You can always then just do a few slow descending circles and break out to land. The Cirrus certainly has the avionics to easily find the airport and line up with a runway as such, even in IMC with 800 ft ceiling.

I don't understand why the pilot tried to lose altitude so fast at an airspeed clearly far far above best glide. Even with the engine having issues you could still go at a bit above best glide with no need to initiate a 2,500 ft/min decent, which only serves to remove the only thing you have in the bank at that point... air below you. Some falsely think this extra airspeed gives you something to play with later, but that demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic flight physics. Yes you can trade a bit of airspeed for altitude later, but you'll still be way worse off than if you followed best glide since the higher airspeed introduces a ton more drag that eats up energy.

Finally, just to be clear, this is not meant to be critical of the pilot. We all can make mistakes, but a key part of aviation safety is discussing what happened in accidents and what could/should have been done differently to produce a better outcome. That's the whole reason why the NTSB writes its reports.
 
peppy said:
Older Cirrus aircraft had a known issue with the wiring that would cause oil pressure and manifold pressure reading issues.
Click to expand...

I had that issue on my 2003 SR22.

Looking over and seeing zero oil pressure was a little unnerving.

But watching the oil temperature like a hawk and seeing it holding steady is evidence of a problem with the indication, not a real loss of oil pressure.

One never wants to become complacent and simply assume it's the gauge. Then again, one must consider that possibility before doing anything too drastic.
 
If you look at the video taken from the backyard, it seems from the initial angle of the plane, that the chute was pulled pretty low. On initial deployment the plane is in a nose down attitude then transitions to a more flat attitude. So the pilot may have tried to set himself up for something and misjudged his glide and run out of options.

Definitely be interesting to hear the final report. Would love it if he did one if the AOPA videos for us.

Anybody know what the pilot's experience level was? Are Cirri the new Bonanza? Low experience / high money pilots getting in trouble and going for option one?
 
rocketflyer84 said:
Good comments.

Let's see what the final report says, but it looks like the big lesson here seems to reiterate what was drilled into me during pilot training. If the aircraft has an issue then unless it's on fire or has other issues that mean you must get on the ground ASAP stay as high as you can as long as you can, even if that means arriving at the airport with several thousand feet to kill. You can always then just do a few slow descending circles and break out to land. The Cirrus certainly has the avionics to easily find the airport and line up with a runway as such, even in IMC with 800 ft ceiling.

I don't understand why the pilot tried to lose altitude so fast at an airspeed clearly far far above best glide. Even with the engine having issues you could still go at a bit above best glide with no need to initiate a 2,500 ft/min decent, which only serves to remove the only thing you have in the bank at that point... air below you. Some falsely think this extra airspeed gives you something to play with later, but that demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic flight physics. Yes you can trade a bit of airspeed for altitude later, but you'll still be way worse off than if you followed best glide since the higher airspeed introduces a ton more drag that eats up energy.

Finally, just to be clear, this is not meant to be critical of the pilot. We all can make mistakes, but a key part of aviation safety is discussing what happened in accidents and what could/should have been done differently to produce a better outcome. That's the whole reason why the NTSB writes its reports.
Click to expand...

Staying high and potentially circling descent is good in clear conditions. This pilot had 800' broken and was likely "expediting" his instrument approach.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
JCranford said:
If you look at the video taken from the backyard, it seems from the initial angle of the plane, that the chute was pulled pretty low. On initial deployment the plane is in a nose down attitude then transitions to a more flat attitude. So the pilot may have tried to set himself up for something and misjudged his glide and run out of options.

Definitely be interesting to hear the final report. Would love it if he did one if the AOPA videos for us.

Anybody know what the pilot's experience level was? Are Cirri the new Bonanza? Low experience / high money pilots getting in trouble and going for option one?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the pull was fairly low and that's why the oscillation didn't dampen out. The pilot was being vectored to the closest field. I suspect the engine was running and the pilot saw the oil pressure drop and decided to make a precautionary landing. The engine quit before he made it to the airport.

The Cirrus fatal rate is below the GA average. From a rather simple look I took it seemed that if you counted CAPS pulls as fatals then the SR22 was about the same rate as the A36 Bonanza. If you just count actual fatal crashes then it is a lot lower. However, good data as to flight hours is hard to come by.
 
JCranford said:
Are Cirri the new Bonanza? Low experience / high money pilots getting in trouble and going for option one?
Click to expand...

This incident aside, this is a legit issue that safety folks talk about. The book "the killing zone" discusses this point a bit as have others.

The natural assumption is that fancier airplanes with lots of extra features just must be safer. The data often suggests otherwise. It's not that the plane itself is less safe but usually that the pilots that often seem to throw out the old school way and resort to trying the fancy toys.

Clearly this is a sensitive issue, but it's totally reasonable for people to point out that if the pilot had gone "old school" thrown the craft into best glide and circled down over the airport this whole thing might have been a non-event. Instead a steep decent was initiated followed by a fancy chute over a populated area that resulted in someone on the ground getting hurt.

Is that a fair comparison? Maybe not and we'll need to wait for the final report, but in aggregate this issue of whether fancy technology makes for safer flights is certainly a valid debate. Personally I maintain that it's usually the pilot, rather than the technology on board, that usually is the biggest factor in outcome.
 
rocketflyer84 said:
I can't help but notice that they seem to have pulled the chute right near a bunch of nice open fields well within best glide distance of where they came down and hit a car on a busy road.

Nobody was killed or seriously injured so that's what matters. However given the altitude available and landing options in the area I'd hardly declare crashing into a car on a busy road as the amazing save the media is making it out to be.

The chute is a nice feature. I'd rather have one than not. But it seems like they threw a lot of other perfectly good options out the window and instead put people on the ground in danger. They could have gone for one of those nice fields and had plenty of time to pull the chute later if that wasn't going to work.

At the end of the day it's this that I think is the most valid criticism of "the chute" in that people often appear to throw normal emergency procedures drilled during good pilot training out the window and just yank the "we give up please save us" lever. I'm not so sure that's actually increasing safety in many situations, including this one.
Click to expand...

What you have to understand here is how much pulling the chute is stressed as a primary emergency option during Cirrus flight training. I was very surprised at this transitioning from a glass cockpit Archer to an SR20. If there's a nice airport nearby, I'm probably going to give that a reasonable shot. But if the options are landing on a road or in an open field, they really want you to pull the chute instead. And by "they" I mean the manufacturer, the insurance company, and the flight school that trained you. At least that's my experience. And also, if you get into a spin in this airplane, they train you to not even try traditional recovery; go straight for the chute.

Having said all that, if I have altitude and airspeed, I'm going to evaluate the situation first. Once you pull that thing you've lost directional control over the aircraft. I would at least try and get over an open field first. And you're also supposed to slow the airplane down as much as possible before pulling it.
 
Thracer said:
What you have to understand here is how much pulling the chute is stressed as a primary emergency option during Cirrus flight training.
Click to expand...

And I don't see why they wouldn't. CAPS deployments within parameters have a 100% save rate. 100%

You can't say that about trying to stretch a glide to a field, road, airport, etc. We read news stories about those accidents all the time.
 
Thracer said:
What you have to understand here is how much pulling the chute is stressed as a primary emergency option during Cirrus flight training.
Click to expand...

Indeed and I don't understand this.
 
rocketflyer84 said:
Indeed and I don't understand this.
Click to expand...

Does the 100% save statistic, when deployed within parameters, make it easier to understand?

Trying to stretch a glide to an airport, road, or field is 100-X, with X being a non-zero number.
 
FastEddieB said:
I had that issue on my 2003 SR22.

Looking over and seeing zero oil pressure was a little unnerving.

But watching the oil temperature like a hawk and seeing it holding steady is evidence of a problem with the indication, not a real loss of oil pressure.

One never wants to become complacent and simply assume it's the gauge. Then again, one must consider that possibility before doing anything too drastic.
Click to expand...

Be careful. I investigated a fatal helicopter accident once where the main transmission lost fluid. The pilot reported zero pressure, but that his temp was steady. Not long after that the main rotor blades locked up around 1200 AGL.
 
Turningfinal said:
Does the 100% save statistic, when deployed within parameters, make it easier to understand?

Trying to stretch a glide to an airport, road, or field is 100-X, with X being a non-zero number.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I think the chute is a great thing to have. I feel more comfortable in a plane with one. Of course a plane with a pilot that's lost control or otherwise put themselves in a bad spot coming to a soft landing in a chute is going to end better than one without. That's not the point.

The point is that when the chutes get deployed it's often because the pilot put the aircraft in a situation that arguably needed a chute.

The question then becomes would a better trained pilot have avoided that situation entirely? The safety question is not "is it safer to land in an emergency with or without a chute" but rather are we letting people substitute technology for good old fashion training on safe flying and thus ultimately coining less safe pilots. In my opinion Cirrus training focuses too much on the chute and not enough on avoiding situations that would require a chute.

The same argument has been made about twin engine planes which on one level would seem to be a lot safer, but often when flown by private pilots are actually a lot less safe. The argument is that people get too complacent and let the perceived safety of a twin-engine plane override basic training.

Dick Collins wrote along these lines bringing up similar points on why the Cirrus had suffered from higher accident rates. Yes, once the accident happens the chute helps but really we should be asking why did the pilot get into a sticky situation in the first place. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that many such pilots did supplement technology for good old fashion training that would have avoided the accident scenario entirely.

http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/05/dicks-blog-whats-wrong-with-cirrus-pilots/

The question of if fancier airplanes are actually less safe (not once an accident happens but in the cause of the situation that caused the accident) is an eternal debate that will likely never be settled. But it's a debate worth having in the interests of safety.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I have been in a "discussion" on Beechtalk. I have said that CAPS is a big reason the Cirrus fatality rate is below the GA average and WAY BELOW the GA number for personal flying (eliminates training, professional crew etc.). The other party claims it is superior training of Cirrus pilots that has led to the drop and that CAPS is a negative.

The bottom lie is that is you look across types, the mistakes made are amazingly similar. People will say "Look at the crazy thing this Cirrus pilot did." It is easy to say the same thing about Beech, Moony, Cessna etc.

The Airfacts article just posted was form 2012. Some of the Cirrus accident reputation came when it was high when everyone was low time in type. As time has go on the time in the issue has decreased and the accident rate has gone down.
 
rocketflyer84 said:
The point is that when the chutes get deployed it's often because the pilot put the aircraft in a situation that arguably needed a chute.

The question then becomes would a better trained pilot have avoided that situation entirely?
Click to expand...
If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hops. The fact of the matter is that there are pilots and passengers who would be dead today if their planes didn't have chutes. Whether the cause would have been unrecoverable mechanical issues or pilot stupidity is immaterial to these people. Sure, there are some other people who pulled but might have lived anyway (e.g., the guy at ADS who flew home trailing his parachute), but we'll never know which folks are in which category.
The safety question is not "is it safer to land in an emergency with or without a chute" but rather are we letting people substitute technology for good old fashion training on safe flying and thus ultimately coining less safe pilots.
Click to expand...
I agree. If people are spending their money on chutes instead of training, it is a problem. Training is more valuable in more situations and in keeping one out of situations where one might need a chute. Ideally the pilots buying these planes would get both. But once you're at that point where you're having an emergency in a plane with a chute, if there's some doubt that you're going to make it down safely, why not pull? Land if you can, but if it isn't clear, pull it. The insurance company would much rather pay for a new plane than dead passengers.
 
dell30rb said:
Loss of oil pressure means you can't set the prop to coarse pitch, so yep its coming down like a rock.

As for the emergency descent, my guess is the oil pressure dropped and he wanted to get it on the ground as fast as possible.
Click to expand...

I flew a T-34 a bit forever ago. It had a full feathering prop. I swear you could FEEL the change in drag when you feathered the prop! It definitely improved the glide ratio.

I know it doesn't (hopefully) get used that often, but how much extra is it for full feathering? There is a $ cost and there is probably a weight penalty.

From what I have read, I don't fault this guy for any decision that was made after his rapid decent. I'm confused by the rapid decent and apparently not declaring an emergency right away. Seems like he painted himself into a corner to where the parachute was the best decision.
 
Piperonca said:
Be careful. I investigated a fatal helicopter accident once where the main transmission lost fluid. The pilot reported zero pressure, but that his temp was steady. Not long after that the main rotor blades locked up around 1200 AGL.
Click to expand...


That sucks.

Temps do rise before engine seizure but if there is no oil pressure, there is no oil flow. A lot of oil temp sensors are mounted as accessories on the block and without oil flowing past them, wont be giving an accurate indication of the engine temp.
 
Piperonca said:
Be careful. I investigated a fatal helicopter accident once where the main transmission lost fluid. The pilot reported zero pressure, but that his temp was steady. Not long after that the main rotor blades locked up around 1200 AGL.
Click to expand...

Hence my admonition not to become complacent! :yesnod:
 
Jay Honeck said:
Am I hearing that right? He was 3 miles from the airport at 3500' with low oil pressure?

Something seems funny here. He was easily in reach of the runway. What's the glide ratio of a Cirrus?
Click to expand...
I thought the same thing. See my post earlier.
Waiting for the NTSB report, hoping to see a PIC statement included.

TangoWhiskey said:
No, I don't think you're hearing it right. ATC was bugging him to cancel IFR because he wasn't maintaining Minimum Vectoring Altitude for that area.... which was in the 3300' range. He was already below that, unable to maintain altitude, and pulled the chute.

I wouldn't respond to ATC bugging me about canceling IFR. I have bigger fish to fry. "Just give me vectors and point out the airport location and distance, buddy!"

It's almost like the controller thought he was going to get a "deal" (their term) for vectoring IFR traffic too low. I would think an emergency like this would trump... but I didn't hear an emergency declared either, by either party. To be fair, this feed had multiple frequency, so it's very likely that some relevant chatter was blocked by other frequencies on the scanner.
Click to expand...
I thought the same. If unable to maintain altitude, declare and go direct to the airport, whichever rwy. I try to be mindful of others but if I have engine trouble, my bacon in that situation is more important than the controller pushing some tin around to get them out of my way.
I did not hear a declaration of emergency (again, it might not have been caught on the scanner) and we don't know whether the controller declared for the pilot.

The NTSB prelim should be out pretty soon.
 
The one critical thing we don't yet know is if the engine was making power at chute deployment.

If the engine was making power, it seems he could easily have made the runway, just 3 miles away. If not, pulling the chute was prudent.

I'm sure this information will come out in the NTSB report. Until it does, this is a dead end thread.
 
There are a ton of dead pilots that didn't make a landing they thought they would. Lots of things can happen on an engine out landing especially if you don't have much real estate to work with.

I remember one CFI with his student had an engine out and told ATC they had a nice piece of land to land on. Even told them where it was and where to pick them up. Rescue showed up and the plane had flipped on landing and caught fire, killing both of them.

Can't fault a guy for pulling the chute, just look at the numbers. If you pull the chute your chances of survival are extremely high.
 
Last edited:
Turningfinal said:
Look at the clouds in the video. Not sure if it was the angle of the video I saw, but they appeared more broken than scattered. Popping out of a deck at 800 AGL does not provide much time to select a good landing spot.

Keep in mind that pilots kill themselves performing "normal emergency procedures" all the time. We read about them on the news. On the flip side, I am unaware of any fatalities caused by a CAPS deployment under recommended deployment conditions. When your survival rate is close to 100% with CAPS, and something significantly less performing "normal emergency procedures", how can you say it doesn't increase safety? How the occupants fare is the correct metric, IMO, not how the aircraft fares.
Click to expand...

This exactly
 
TexDeuce said:
There are a ton of dead pilots that didn't make landing they thought they would. Lots of things can happen on an engine out landing especially if you don't have much real estate to work with.

I remember one CFI with his student had an engine out and told ATC they had a nice piece of land to land on. Even told them where it was and where to pick them up. Rescue showed up and the plane had fliped on landing and caught fire, killing both of them.

Can't fault a guy for pulling the chute, just look at the numbers. If you pull the chute your chances of survival are extremely high.
Click to expand...

OK I'm convinced. I am going to use the CAPS system for every landing just to be safe. Fly to destination(or close) pull handle, call the insurance company, then hail an Uber ride the rest of the way.:rolleyes2:
 
These posts are funny. If there's an emergency, and someone walks away from it, who gives a **** if it's a chute or if it's a deployable bubble wrap cocoon or some crazy sci-fi proton force field?

If I had a Cirrus and I felt safer pulling the chute in an emergency, you're god-damned right I would. It's part of the flow in that particular aircraft. Have a problem with it? Don't get a Cirrus. But if someone walks away, don't armchair what they could have done better because you're such a better pilot.

Your "I could have made that" might get you in trouble someday.
 
Phoenix said:
OK I'm convinced. I am going to use the CAPS system for every landing just to be safe. Fly to destination(or close) pull handle, call the insurance company, then hail an Uber ride the rest of the way.:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

What are you convinced of? Whatever that is you just wrote certainly isn't what I said. Pretty sure I never said every landing or emergency should involve a CAPS deployment, but nice Straw Man!
 
TexDeuce said:
What are you convinced of? Whatever that is you just wrote certainly isn't what I said. Pretty sure I never said every landing or emergency should involve a CAPS deployment, but nice Straw Man!
Click to expand...

Having a laugh dude.:yes: Note the emoticons.:yes: Only thing I can say about CAPS is the presence of a parachute option changes behavior. How much, for better, or for worse I dunno.:eek:
 
Phoenix said:
OK I'm convinced. I am going to use the CAPS system for every landing just to be safe. Fly to destination(or close) pull handle, call the insurance company, then hail an Uber ride the rest of the way.:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

Lol. Pretty sure I'd be better off with this method based on my crosswind landings yesterday. Yikes!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top