Another Chute Pull Saves The Day

wanttaja said:
How do you score it? If there are ten chute pulls that resulted in live pilots, and three of the ten would have died if they'd attempted to land, is that an argument for or against the chute? What if two pilots would have died? What if six would have? In other words, how many people have to NOT die to make the chute worthwhile?
Click to expand...

Thinking about this, I decided to gather some data.

I took my 17-year database of homebuilt accidents, and extracted the Glasair and Lancair accidents (e.g., high performance homebuilts). There were 247 total accidents over the period, of which 75 (about 30%) included an engine failure (for any reason...mechanical issues, running out of fuel, etc.).

Of those 75 accidents, the pilot was unable to execute a safe forced landing (defined as either serious or fatal injuries) in 31 of them...about 41% of the time. Seven occurred during takeoff, while another three were on climbout with the actual altitude the engine quit not clear. The rest were in the nominal envelope of a BRS.

So...if your engine quits in one of these high-performance homebuilts, you're got about a 30% chance of fatal injury or death. The median flight time of the pilots involved was about 1500 hours.

Just for the heck of it, I ran the same analysis for the RVs...and they're worse! They see a lower percentage of engine failures (17% vs 30% for the high-performance homebuilts), but Sixty-one percent of all RV engine failures result in serious injury or death.

No question, pilots should have the skills to safely land the aircraft without a BRS. But the numbers seem to indicate that there's a high percentage of cases where either the challenge is beyond the pilot's skill or the engine-failure location doesn't permit a safe landing.

Ron Wanttaja
 
One factor not included in my data: Successful forced landings (no damage, no injuries) are not reportable to the FAA or NTSB, and thus aren't included in the accident data.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
One factor not included in my data: Successful forced landings (no damage, no injuries) are not reportable to the FAA or NTSB, and thus aren't included in the accident data.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
I wonder what insurance companies use? They are likely to be involved even if no FAA,NTSB.
 
This one just happened today:
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2016/03/cirrus-sr22-advance-wellness-n295ar.html

This article includes a picture that should answer any remaining questions as to why Cirrus pilots consider the chute when the spinny thing up front stops spinning:
KathrynsReport.jpg
 
Hank S said:
It ain't the FAA, it's physics. Low wing planes can't feed fuel through gravity,they must pump the fuel. Put the pump on "both," let one tank go empty before the other one, and the pump won't send any more fuel to the engine.
Click to expand...

The Rockwell Commander 112A has a both setting.
 
NoHeat said:
True. It was a rare situation. The NTSA found that the plane was changing attitude, and rolling rapidly, when the chute was pulled due to pilot disorientation.

The rocket needs to pull the chute straight out of the fuselage, and normally it does this very well, but in this case it couldn't because of the rapid roll -- the rocket was going in one direction but a fraction of a second later when it tugged on the chute the chute needed to be tugged in a different direction. So the chute deployment failed. Amazingly the pilot regained control, and landed on a runway, with the chute still in the fuselage and the rocket dangling behind the plane.

So is this a reason to bash chutes? No. Pilot disorientation is actually a very compelling reason for a chute, as there are few alternatives. "Just put it down in a field" isn't an alternative if you are disoriented. In this worst-case scenario, pulling the chute was still the best option available.
Click to expand...

For those interested, the pilot lost control in turbulence after he suffered loss of instruments in a p-static event - it could happen to anybody flying behind a glass panel. Cirrus re-designed the CAPS system when they came out with their G5 (200# MGTW increase). The rocket now has more oomph, and anyone getting a CAPS repack now gets a beefier rocket, plus a new activation system. In the system that failed, the extraction angle exceeded well-past 45 degrees from the rocket's thrust vector and the rocket could not pull the chute pack out of its housing at the extreme angle.
 
wanttaja said:
One factor not included in my data: Successful forced landings (no damage, no injuries) are not reportable to the FAA or NTSB, and thus aren't included in the accident data.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

The engine failures are troubling, and we're looking at the Bo and Cirrus fleets, which both fly behind IO550N Continentals. The failure modes that predominate in Cirrus SDR's are (1) magnetos grenading; (2) fuel pump O-ring leaks; and a (3) particular defect of an oil fitting on the newer Continental turbos that took out an SR22T in Arkansas a few months ago.

We don't have info yet on what caused the engine failures in three recent chute pulls. I wonder about their maintenance intervals, and possible warning signs.
I had a type 1 (mag) failure when the nylon timing gear on a mag shredded 20 teeth during climb. On inspection, the other mag had incipient cracks too (neither gave any hint of trouble during ground an previous in-flight mag checks). I learned you have to specify you want the timing gears replaced at magneto overhaul, or they won't get done.

I've had the O-ring leaking on the fuel pump - twice before the 400-hr recommended replacement interval, but caught these on the ground before they progressed to causing trouble in flight. One way to find that involves running the boost pump and looking for a leak past the control shaft on the engine-driven pump. Usually, there will be blue staining on the belly that shows up first. But, you gotta look.
 
Mark57 said:
The engine failures are troubling, and we're looking at the Bo and Cirrus fleets, which both fly behind IO550N Continentals. The failure modes that predominate in Cirrus SDR's are (1) magnetos grenading; (2) fuel pump O-ring leaks; and a (3) particular defect of an oil fitting on the newer Continental turbos that took out an SR22T in Arkansas a few months ago.

We don't have info yet on what caused the engine failures in three recent chute pulls. I wonder about their maintenance intervals, and possible warning signs.
I had a type 1 (mag) failure when the nylon timing gear on a mag shredded 20 teeth during climb. On inspection, the other mag had incipient cracks too (neither gave any hint of trouble during ground an previous in-flight mag checks). I learned you have to specify you want the timing gears replaced at magneto overhaul, or they won't get done.

I've had the O-ring leaking on the fuel pump - twice before the 400-hr recommended replacement interval, but caught these on the ground before they progressed to causing trouble in flight. One way to find that involves running the boost pump and looking for a leak past the control shaft on the engine-driven pump. Usually, there will be blue staining on the belly that shows up first. But, you gotta look.
Click to expand...

Are your magnetos Champion Slick? I have Slick mags on my Lycomings and in the past year installed the routine 500 hr service kit parts on all four of them, but my mechanic tells me Champion Slick discourages overhauling of their mags by charging more for all the parts required than it costs to buy a brand new mag from them. I would guess the liability issues and the lawyers are driving that decision.

Is there something unique about these higher output engines, particularly the turbo-charged ones, which would presumably be stressed more than the IO-550?
I have a recollection that Piper used a turbocharged Continental in the original Malibu (TIO-520 I think?) and replaced it with a Lycoming engine after the first few years of production?
 
Finally we're getting somewhere in these discussions. Yes, there are specifics to these engines that are culpable for these failures in ways a Lycoming engine and/or a NA engine does not. TCM 550-Ns are simply HP over-rated, they belong in the 244-280HP like the -G model they are essentially. But that would screw the Cirri marketing numbers, when you end up with a lead-heavy fiberglass flying bathtub Piper Comanche.

The TCM installation (kelly?) fuel pumps are inferior to the Lyco setups (bendix) imo. The TCM 360s have the same M.O. when it comes to power-backs in the descent power pull , due to contamination and fuel pump problems screwing with the idle power fuel flow of the pump in the presence of failing seals that compromise the flow. That accounts for your Cirrus "problem" right there. It is absolutely an appropriate analogy to call the -22 the new Piper Malibu. It's all in the engine here folks, specifically the fuel delivery system, this has jack to do with the parachute. Add the worm drive rube goldberg starters, and everything-geared accessories, and holy time bomb batman.

It's a self-licking ice cream cone; Cirrus can't do anything with their unholy marriage to Tele-China-Motors, so they want you to focus on the chute. That's all good and great for marketing, but it does nothing to address the sources of these SDRs.

I do agree with cirri owners though...no way in hell I fly that airplane without a chute. As to any other airplane with a NA Lyco, I would, and I DO! I'll take "spalling" cams over 500 hour cylinders and Little Tikes fuel pump/FI components. Now where's my danged flame suit. :D
 
GRG55 said:
Are your magnetos Champion Slick? I have Slick mags on my Lycomings and in the past year installed the routine 500 hr service kit parts on all four of them, but my mechanic tells me Champion Slick discourages overhauling of their mags by charging more for all the parts required than it costs to buy a brand new mag from them. I would guess the liability issues and the lawyers are driving that decision.

Is there something unique about these higher output engines, particularly the turbo-charged ones, which would presumably be stressed more than the IO-550?
I have a recollection that Piper used a turbocharged Continental in the original Malibu (TIO-520 I think?) and replaced it with a Lycoming engine after the first few years of production?
Click to expand...

Mine is an '08 with the Tornado Alley STC for turbo-normalizing and a Hartzell composite prop. The magnetos are Bendix, and are modified for high latitude with addition of a pressurization line. The top-end is doing fine at 1,200 hrs. But, the accessories have been an issue: mags, fuel pumps, and alternators have not held up well.

A lot of folks don't seem to get the fuel pump set up correctly. It should not die at idle with the boost pump off. Yet, I see a lot of posts complaining about that.

I didn't mean to hijack the thread. I don't know what happened in these recent engine failures, but am just wondering about potential causes.
 
Mark57 said:
Mine is an '08 with the Tornado Alley STC for turbo-normalizing and a Hartzell composite prop. The magnetos are Bendix, and are modified for high latitude with addition of a pressurization line. The top-end is doing fine at 1,200 hrs. But, the accessories have been an issue: mags, fuel pumps, and alternators have not held up well.

A lot of folks don't seem to get the fuel pump set up correctly. It should not die at idle with the boost pump off. Yet, I see a lot of posts complaining about that.

I didn't mean to hijack the thread. I don't know what happened in these recent engine failures, but am just wondering about potential causes.
Click to expand...


A corporate pilot friend of mine frequently flies an SR22T that is the private, personal airplane of one of his corporate clients. In response to my question he said it has a Continental TSIO-550 K that is boosted to 36.5 inches @2500 RPM on take-off. I assume your Tornado Alley turbo-normalized is trying to hold something closer to 15 psi all the time?
 
So just asking because I see a pattern here... Folks who actually know this fuel system, did you see @SixPapaCharlie 's story about roughness during the descent in his Cirrus today?

Sure seems like at least some of the discussion here in this thread (speculation or not) centers on fuel pump issues and they might manifest themselves at the start of the power pull for the descent.

Poking the question out there.

Wouldn't want 6PC to actually have to pull...

Anyone ^^^ up there who's had fuel pump problems, what were your early indications?
 
How common is it to reduce power at the beginning of descent? Granted I don't fly a Cirrus, but I don't reduce power at all on descent except as required to maintain my cruise MP and EGT (my carb doesn't do LOP very well); many of my Mooney brethren with injected engines stay WOT from departure to just before pattern entry.

Guess I just don't understand descending 6-, 8-, 10-thousand feet or more with reduced power. Power on allows speed to build (I stabilize around 170-175 mph Indicated) to make up for the slow climb, turning altitude into airspeed. Reducing power just throws it all away . . . Especially if pulling power contributes to engine failure!
 
Hank S said:
How common is it to reduce power at the beginning of descent? Granted I don't fly a Cirrus, but I don't reduce power at all on descent except as required to maintain my cruise MP and EGT (my carb doesn't do LOP very well); many of my Mooney brethren with injected engines stay WOT from departure to just before pattern entry.

Guess I just don't understand descending 6-, 8-, 10-thousand feet or more with reduced power. Power on allows speed to build (I stabilize around 170-175 mph Indicated) to make up for the slow climb, turning altitude into airspeed. Reducing power just throws it all away . . . Especially if pulling power contributes to engine failure!
Click to expand...

It depends on how close you are. A non-turbo doesn't slow down well. Turbos have the advantage of the composite prop. Flap extension speed is 119 for the first notch and 104 for full flaps. If you get slam dunked by ATC then you have to pull power and get flaps in before the descent. Otherwise you will be well above flap extension speed when you reach pattern altitude and won't be able to get flaps in.
 
peppy said:
It depends on how close you are. A non-turbo doesn't slow down well. Turbos have the advantage of the composite prop. Flap extension speed is 119 for the first notch and 104 for full flaps. If you get slam dunked by ATC then you have to pull power and get flaps in before the descent. Otherwise you will be well above flap extension speed when you reach pattern altitude and won't be able to get flaps in.
Click to expand...

I'll bet lunch that your Cirrus, clean, will slow down faster than my non-turbo, carbureted Mooney . . . My flap speed is 125 mph for any. Level off, reduce power and in ~3 nm or so, I'll be slow(er). But I don't fly high enough to worry much about slam dunks, which is good because there's no way for me to lose any speed at all in even a gentle descent.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I do agree with cirri owners though...no way in hell I fly that airplane without a chute. As to any other airplane with a NA Lyco, I would, and I DO! I'll take "spalling" cams over 500 hour cylinders and Little Tikes fuel pump/FI components. Now where's my danged flame suit. :D
Click to expand...
They go a lot more than 500 hours. The one we're repairing now made it almost 800 hours since new. Of course it needed a new cam and some other parts, too... :oops:
 
GRG55 said:
A corporate pilot friend of mine frequently flies an SR22T that is the private, personal airplane of one of his corporate clients. In response to my question he said it has a Continental TSIO-550 K that is boosted to 36.5 inches @2500 RPM on take-off. I assume your Tornado Alley turbo-normalized is trying to hold something closer to 15 psi all the time?
Click to expand...

Cirrus offered the Tornado Alley turbo normalizer STC on the Continental IO-550N up through 2009. In 2010, Cirrus switched to the Continental TSIO-550K, which is run at lower cylinder compression (so it can be derated to run on 94UL, if necessary). These TSIO-550K engine are boosted higher than the Tornado Alley IO-550N STCs.

However, the TN is not run at 15 psi. It boosts to approximately sea level pressure up to its critical altitude. The boost pressure is controlled by twin turbo waste gates using upper deck air pressure to provide feedback to an aneroid that meters oil pressure to the waste gates. Actual manifold pressure at WOT should be 29.6", but most of us set them a little higher - say 30.5". They only way you'd see 15" MAP in a normally functioning TN is if you pulled the throttle almost closed, or with full throttle if you had a leak in say a cracked exhaust, a hose clamp came loose on the induction tubing, or you lost your oil pressure.

Regarding fuel pumps, Cirrus released SB2X-28-12R1 in August 2015. This specifies procedures for checking the electric fuel boost pump for leaks. According to the service bulletin, leaking seals in the electric fuel pump may cause power interruption during maneuvering flight with the electric fuel pump off.

Anyway, like I said, I don't know why the engines failed in the two or three most recent CAPS pulls.
 
Mark57 said:
Cirrus offered the Tornado Alley turbo normalizer STC on the Continental IO-550N up through 2009. In 2010, Cirrus switched to the Continental TSIO-550K, which is run at lower cylinder compression (so it can be derated to run on 94UL, if necessary). These TSIO-550K engine are boosted higher than the Tornado Alley IO-550N STCs.

However, the TN is not run at 15 psi. It boosts to approximately sea level pressure up to its critical altitude. The boost pressure is controlled by twin turbo waste gates using upper deck air pressure to provide feedback to an aneroid that meters oil pressure to the waste gates. Actual manifold pressure at WOT should be 29.6", but most of us set them a little higher - say 30.5". They only way you'd see 15" MAP in a normally functioning TN is if you pulled the throttle almost closed, or with full throttle if you had a leak in say a cracked exhaust, a hose clamp came loose on the induction tubing, or you lost your oil pressure.

Regarding fuel pumps, Cirrus released SB2X-28-12R1 in August 2015. This specifies procedures for checking the electric fuel boost pump for leaks. According to the service bulletin, leaking seals in the electric fuel pump may cause power interruption during maneuvering flight with the electric fuel pump off.

Anyway, like I said, I don't know why the engines failed in the two or three most recent CAPS pulls.
Click to expand...

I believe a MP of 30" is approximately 15 psi, which is approximately sea level pressure. I inadvertently mixed units in my original post (inches Hg and then psi) and introduced some unnecessary and unhelpful confusion into the discussion. Not intentional, and my apologies.

Thanks for the clarification on the two different turbo systems Cirrus used, and the boost pressure controller on the TA TN. Big improvement over the crude waste-gate systems on may planes from the 1970s and '80s. When I was researching twins before buying the Aztec I noticed that quite a few Senecas had been retrofitted with the Merlin upper deck controller mod, which seems somewhat similar to what you describe on the TN Cirrus.
 
GRG55 said:
I believe a MP of 30" is approximately 15 psi, which is approximately sea level pressure. I inadvertently mixed units in my original post (inches Hg and then psi) and introduced some unnecessary and unhelpful confusion into the discussion. Not intentional, and my apologies.

Thanks for the clarification on the two different turbo systems Cirrus used, and the boost pressure controller on the TA TN. Big improvement over the crude waste-gate systems on may planes from the 1970s and '80s. When I was researching twins before buying the Aztec I noticed that quite a few Senecas had been retrofitted with the Merlin upper deck controller mod, which seems somewhat similar to what you describe on the TN Cirrus.
Click to expand...

I should have picked that up, so no worries. Tornado Alley is a great company to work with. I had an exhaust slip joint that was showing signs of wear. They welded in a new coupling and replaced the worn part with a new Iconel stainless piece for far less than purchasing a whole new exhaust manifold.
 
peppy said:
Do this exercise. Set a random timer and go flying. When it goes off, select the field you would land in. Now go back to the airport. Get in a car and go to the field. Remove the shocks, put on tiny tires. Now drive over the field at 70 mph.

Here is a mental exercise. If the chance of an off field landing with only minor injuries is say 80% and the chance if you pull is 99% which do you do?

Sorry, but I had a friend die trying to make it to an airport rather than pulling. He almost made it. Listening to his 9 year old daughter talk about missing her dad made me wish he had thought more about himself and his family and less about the plane.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
peppy said:
Do this exercise. Set a random timer and go flying. When it goes off, select the field you would land in. Now go back to the airport. Get in a car and go to the field. Remove the shocks, put on tiny tires. Now drive over the field at 70 mph.

Here is a mental exercise. If the chance of an off field landing with only minor injuries is say 80% and the chance if you pull is 99% which do you do?
Click to expand...
Here is a mental exercise. You look down and there is nothing but tall trees (or buildings). Off to the right, just within gliding distance, is a field. If you choose the field, you would be below CAPS minimum deployment altitude when you get there. What do you do?
 
tyndall said:
Here is a mental exercise. You look down and there is nothing but tall trees (or buildings). Off to the right, just within gliding distance, is a field. If you choose the field, you would be below CAPS minimum deployment altitude when you get there. What do you do?
Click to expand...
That's easy for a Cirrus pilot. There is never a decision to be made if there's not an airport in range. Navigate to the safest place you can by 2000' AGL and pull CAPS. Trees have been quite safe for CAPS landings believe it or not. I'd even venture to say the landing is substantially softer than in a field due to the additional cushioning.
Landing under canopy at 1700fps (1200fps G5) is always going to be smoother than landing in a field or in trees at 70mph+. Why risk a wing full of fuel hitting a rock, stump or whatever and cartwheeling you into a ball of flames? What's the upside? There's a pretty good chance you'll total the plane with either scenario, so why take the additional risk?
 
Fpm.... Fps would be faster than a speeding bullet......

But I agree...just saving you from the tongue lasting by those militant Bo drivers.

I've narrowed my search down to a Trinidad, a G2 SR20 or an early SR-22. And I have a hard time deciding between those...but the chute will be the deciding factor in the end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I've said it before... when the engine quits, in my opinion, the airplane ownership automatically transfers to the insurance company... My only priority from that point forward is for the survival of me and my passengers... If I can do that and save the airframe too, so be it... So if I had a chute I'd consider it as an option to that end but not necessarily the first option...
 
I have a mancrush on my Socata's though... The 5' wide cabin.... But the CAPS is an important factor where I'm at out west. I have mountains on three sides of me, and while I know it's not the end-all....it puts me in a better position than not having one at all....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
tuwood said:
The recent ones are more related to the pilot forgetting to switch tanks and running one tank out versus running it completely dry.
I really wish the FAA would allow a "both" setting on the low wings. They require the tank switch for "safety", but multiple planes have crashed due to pilots forgetting to switch. :confused:
Click to expand...

Well WTF. We can spend the dollars and weight to put in a parachute, but we can't figure a way to put in a small header tank and a bubble detector and a audible alarm to prompt the pilot to switch tanks?
 
Old Geek said:
Well WTF. We can spend the dollars and weight to put in a parachute, but we can't figure a way to put in a small header tank and a bubble detector and a audible alarm to prompt the pilot to switch tanks?
Click to expand...
I'm flying a 2009 SR20 GTS and it has a scheduler alarm that goes off every 30 minutes. It's pretty obvious and dings me to switch tanks. I'm usually watching them as part of my scan, but it's nice to have a friendly reminder just in case.
With the newer ones, I'm pretty sure the fuel sensors are accurate enough that they give an actual warning when your imbalance gets out of whack.
 
I am flying a 2001 and I get a message on the 430.
If I were lousy enough not to scan that, I would eventually get the low fuel light on the panel once either tank is below 10 Gallons.

If I somehow miss both of those, and didn't do some calculations before taking off, I shouldn't be flying an aircraft.
 
The chute should be contingency against things that are generally out of the pilot's control - mechanical failure of the engine for example.

Fuel management isn't outside the pilot's control. And every single additional system that is added to the plane increases complexity, failure modes and weight. All of which are undesirable.
 
GRG55 said:
The chute should be contingency against things that are generally out of the pilot's control - mechanical failure of the engine for example.

Fuel management isn't outside the pilot's control. And every single additional system that is added to the plane increases complexity, failure modes and weight. All of which are undesirable.
Click to expand...

The 'chute is for any situation in which the pilot thinks he needs it.

Inside vs outside of the pilot's control is moot once the engine quits.

And fuel mismanagement happens to pilots without chutes too - often. No one claimed that 'chuted TAAs prevent a pilot from screwing up. But what they can do is save his life (a very high percentage of the time) once he has screwed up.

If people (especially people who can afford a Cirrus!) sat down and figured up the NPV of the remaining portion of their lives they might be shocked. Even multiplying that times the difference in change of death between a Cirrus and non-'chuted plane would often be a large number. Some of those people might buy large insurance policies. But insurance pays out upon your actual death. A chute pays out and saves your life.
 
I'm fairly certain that no pilot of any aircraft intentionally mismanages their fuel. There may be those that push the margins closer than others by flying right up to a 30 minute reserve (or beyond), but that's not unique to Cirrus pilots.
The simple fact is, stuff happens. Often the stuff that happens is human related and could have easily been prevented if the pilot had only done X before the flight, but it doesn't really matter when you're 2000' over Long Island and the spinny thing at the front of your plane just stopped spinning.
 
petrolero said:
The 'chute is for any situation in which the pilot thinks he needs it.

Inside vs outside of the pilot's control is moot once the engine quits.

And fuel mismanagement happens to pilots without chutes too - often. No one claimed that 'chuted TAAs prevent a pilot from screwing up. But what they can do is save his life (a very high percentage of the time) once he has screwed up.

If people (especially people who can afford a Cirrus!) sat down and figured up the NPV of the remaining portion of their lives they might be shocked. Even multiplying that times the difference in change of death between a Cirrus and non-'chuted plane would often be a large number. Some of those people might buy large insurance policies. But insurance pays out upon your actual death. A chute pays out and saves your life.
Click to expand...

My post obviously wasn't clear. I said the chute should be a contingency against things that are generally [out of the pilot's control]. Agree completely that it's a moot point once the engine stops - the reason it stopped is utterly irrelevant at that point, as it should be.

However, what I was keying on in my "every single additional system" comment was NOT the chute, but the suggestion posted earlier about header tanks, bubble detectors and audible alarms to overcome some pilot's inability to pay attention to when the tank should be switched.

Old Geek said:
Well WTF. We can spend the dollars and weight to put in a parachute, but we can't figure a way to put in a small header tank and a bubble detector and a audible alarm to prompt the pilot to switch tanks?
Click to expand...

More bells and whistles is all fine and dandy, but I stand by my view that every additional system [to try to idiot proof the plane, as opposed to trying to overcome the consequences of things that may be outside the pilot's control] increases complexity and in itself adds more failure modes.
 
GRG55 said:
However, what I was keying on in my "every single additional system" comment was NOT the chute, but the suggestion posted earlier about header tanks, bubble detectors and audible alarms to overcome some pilot's inability to pay attention to when the tank should be switched.

More bells and whistles is all fine and dandy, but I stand by my view that every additional system [to try to idiot proof the plane, as opposed to trying to overcome the consequences of things that may be outside the pilot's control] increases complexity and in itself adds more failure modes.
Click to expand...

Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.

And unfortunately, aviation seems to have the same high percentage of fools as the rest if the population. And the percentages seem to be growing. . . .
 
tyndall said:
Here is a mental exercise. You look down and there is nothing but tall trees (or buildings). Off to the right, just within gliding distance, is a field. If you choose the field, you would be below CAPS minimum deployment altitude when you get there. What do you do?
Click to expand...

Easy answer - trees. Biggest thing to remember if you come down in trees is to check how high up you are. People have been hurt getting out of the plane rather than waiting for rescuers to help them down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top