Another Cirrus down, 6-18-2016

Tuwood, thanks for saying much more eloquently what I was trying to express!
 
I'm not a CAPS advocate but only in the sense that I'm against any opinion that everyone should have one. If you do have a twelve thousand dollar red handle and something goes wrong sure, go ahead and pull it but as was pointed out earlier, regardless of what you do there are gonna be a bunch of yahoos on the internet second guessing you and pointing out every mistake you made and everything you did that wasn't perfect while you lay in the hospital possibly fighting for your very life.

And these are your fellow pilots, a tight group :rolleyes:
 
You (generic human) can tolerate much more horizontal G than vertical G. So I wouldn't rule out attempting a forced, versus counting on the chute functioning perfectly. I wouldn't second guess the guy, either, though. He made his call, and survived.

Not sure I credit the chute 100% success rate as convincing, not when accompanied by the caveat "deployed within parameters", though. I imagine the forced landing stats approach the same success rate when "within parameters", ie; touchdown level, minimum speed, descent rate reasonable, and enough room to stop within human G tolerance. Just diffrent values, as opposed to the chute's altitude, speed, and whatever else limitations.

No problem with his altitude selection, either. He was down low for whatever reason suited him; I imagine he was smart enough to understand it increased risk some. So what? We don't fly to be "safe", and we don't all have the same risk tolerance. . .If someone wants a chute, always uses flight following VFR, constantly keeps a lookout for a forced landing spot, memorizes the regs, and brushes daily, I'm cool with it. But the "other guy" isn't stupid becuase he doesn't do all that. Just diffrent priorities. . .
 
Sundancer said:
Not sure I credit the chute 100% success rate as convincing, not when accompanied by the caveat "deployed within parameters", though. I imagine the forced landing stats approach the same success rate when "within parameters", ie; touchdown level, minimum speed, descent rate reasonable, and enough room to stop within human G tolerance. Just diffrent values, as opposed to the chute's altitude, speed, and whatever else limitations.
Click to expand...

The reason I say within parameters is that it's not going to save you if you're in a terminal nose dive and your wings have ripped off and it's not going to save you if you pull it 50' off the ground . There was an unfortunate incident where CAPS was deployed at I believe an estimated 300kts and the chute ripped right off. There have been other incidents where caps was deployed at very low altitude that didn't turn out successfully. In contrast there has never been a fatality when CAPS was deployed over 1000' and under Vne airspeed of under 200kts. Not one. The 1000' allows for spin recovery, but straight and level is 500' (600' G5)

I don't know about you, but that's a pretty broad performance envelope if you ask me. If I have an engine out and best glide established ~100kts the decision is very easy with anything above 500' AGL.

With regular forced landings into unknown terrain there's no question that there's a "parameters" there as well because a plane at a controlled stall touching down is much better off than a plane spinning in. The other variables that come into play with a forced landing though is the effects of stress causing you to make a mistake combined with obstacles in the terrain such as stumps, rocks, trees, etc. Obviously it's the only option if a chute isn't available, but the data doesn't support it being safer than using CAPS no matter how you look at it.
 
Sure, concur, more skill and "stress management" is required when executing a forced landing off airport. Clearly, the chute isn't exactly a "zero-zero" system, either, but given the airplane's performance range, yeah, it's a legitimate safety feature.

But I wouldn't have beat him up if he chose to land this one, versus deploying the parachute. Pulling the chute turns you into a passenger, and I did enough airdrops to know parachute systems can fan/do fail. Again, I imagine failure is a low probability with the Cirrus system, if done within limitations. But once deployed, good chute or not, that's what you're stuck with. Personally, I think (but can't know, of course) I would have done the landing thing in this case. In another situation, who knows? Night, urban, loss of control, probably pull. . .

But mostly I fly a 172 now, in which a forced landing into the average driveway is survivable, given the low touchdown energy possible. Maybe I'd feel differently in a Cirrus, with higher speeds, less benign low-speed handling, and a ready option installed that off-sets those shortcomings?
 
Regardless or not of a CAPS pull, they all made it out. The a/c can always be replaced. The only thing I don't like about the chute system is the fact that the airplane is rendered uncontrollable after it's deployed.
 
Ryanb said:
Regardless or not of a CAPS pull, they all made it out. The a/c can always be replaced. The only thing I don't like about the chute system is the fact that the airplane is rendered uncontrollable after it's deployed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it should have a giant ram air chute with steering toggles.
 
Sundancer said:
Sure, concur, more skill and "stress management" is required when executing a forced landing off airport.

Maybe I'd feel differently in a Cirrus, with higher speeds, less benign low-speed handling, and a ready option installed that off-sets those shortcomings?
Click to expand...

What about the poor guy who pulled his chute recently, it didn't deploy, and he had to land at an airport anyway? Talk about stress!!
 
What is the recommended and historical minimum chute deploy altitude for a Cirrus in an engine out glide configuration?
 
I didn't realize that Cirri had an engine out glide configuration other than beneath that big orange chute . . .
 
Tarheelpilot said:
He is saying we should always plan for the engine failure. You know...the whole assume it fails and be surprised when it doesn't
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the way in which he phrased it, specifically including formation flying, seemed like that type of op is more prone to failure. I was hoping to learn something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top