Curious – what does cirrus guidance say if you lose your engine but think you can force land it on a field? are you meant to pull the caps or not?
In that scenario, CAPS would be advised.
Rami1988 wrote:
Curious – what does cirrus guidance say if you lose your engine but think you can force land it on a field? are you meant to pull the caps or not?
The decision making process pretty much decides that for you – so let’s examine the process….
Firstly, what is your limit to pull? Let’s say it’s 500 feet – can you definitively tell whether ground level below you is at sea level? Is it at 200 feet MSL? 300 feet MSL? You might be fortunate to know that an airfield nearby is 400 MSL but you’re not sure. So call it 1000 feet MSL where you will pull.
You’re 600 feet in the air, possibly higher, looking to land on a field. Can you identify a rut going across the field? Or perhaps a small stone wall, which is hidden by the grass? Or a small wire fence? You’re taking a chance with your health – and that of your passengers – that your eyesight is good enough to see, identify and recognise all potential obstacles – because if you misjudged it, if there was a irrigation rut running across the field, you’ll hit that doing 70 odd miles per hour. Let’s not forget, Cirrus SR2x have wet wings. You hit a hidden fence post hidden in the field and rip the wing apart, you’ve already got the first requirement for a catastrophic fire with any fuel inside sprayed around. All you need is a source of ignition……
However, if you pull the chute early enough, you’ll descend to the ground with a significantly reduced risk to life and limb.
So, what’s the choice going to be? Do you feel lucky?
I get your point – makes a lot of sense.
I’m not sure what I would do. On the one hand what you said, but on the other hand, pulling a chute means not knowing where you will end up, which is rather uncomfortable. But, that may be irrational.
I don’t own a cirrus but if I did I would probably look up all the stats on landing somewhere random vs landing in a field.
For example what if you ended up on a roof and slid down, or ended up anywhere high with a cliff. Just hypothesising..
Some crash videos suggest that a Cirrus will readily catch fire in a crash.
I would try to fly it somewhere which looks OK and pull the chute.
Curious – what does cirrus guidance say if you lose your engine but think you can force land it on a field? are you meant to pull the caps or not?
According to a Cirrus instructor in our club, the answer is yes.
Rami1988 wrote:
I’m not sure what I would do. On the one hand what you said, but on the other hand, pulling a chute means not knowing where you will end up, which is rather uncomfortable. But, that may be irrational.
You might think you know where you end up in a deadstick landing, however, you don’t. It isn’t possible to judge it from altitude. And by the time you can judge it, it is too late to go somewhere else. Some barbwire fence can decapitate you, some rut in the soil will flip a plane etc..
With all due respect, out landing in a glider is not rocket science, just a skill one needs to master. It’s done on daily bases across the continent.
SR22 power off behaves just like a glider, it has to, otherwise would not get certified.
Peter wrote:
once she has seen the construction standard
Talking about standards. There’s a whole bunch of standards for ULs. Many countries with their own. In Norway we have none, we can pick and chose 
or “create” our own private one (which becomes an experimental UL). Factories are free to chose as well, but some standards are obviously more versatile than others. The Savannah is built after the US ASTM standard, which is the US LSA standard. This standard is accepted everywhere, except perhaps UK ?
EASA has in it’s typical genius fashion said that CS-LSA or CS-VLA (or any other EASA standard) cannot be used for ULs. If the CS-LSA is used, then the aircraft has to be registered as an EASA LSA and not as an UL. An UL has to use a non EASA standard. If someone is able to explain a trustworthy rationale behind such a decision with a serious face, I would like to hear it.
The most common European standard is the German LFT-UL and the Czech UL 2. They both changed in 2019 due to increase in MTOW. They are virtually identical. The UL-2 can be found here .
LTF-UL is here:
LTF_UL_2020_Airworthiness_requirements_for_motor_powered_aerodynamically_controlled_ultralight_aeroplanes_pdf
The original German version is here: LTF_UL_2019_pdf
The standard before 2019 (Ge, Cz) is here:
LTF_UL_2003_EN_German_Airworthiness_Requirements_pdf
The Canadian one:
2004_LAMAC_DS_10141_ULTRALIGHT_DESIGN_STANDARD_pdf
And finally, the newest British one, more or less identical to the German/Czech ones, but with a British touch
cap_482_bcar_section_s_2023_p_pdf
A rescue chute has been part of these standards since they first appeared in the mid 80s AFAIK. Not part of the design of the aircraft itself, but as a thing that must be considered if applicable. The British standard has a section about the applicability of the rescue chute. IMO this reflects exactly how most people feel about this equipment, the general view down to earth pragmatic view (except Cirrus owners of course )
This Sub-Section K is applicable to emergency parachute recovery systems designed to recover a complete aeroplane in emergency situations, such as mid-air collision, loss of aeroplane control, structural failure, pilot disorientation, pilot incapacitation, engine failure etc., in circumstances where the pilot does not believe that a survivable landing can be made. It is applicable to parachute systems which are intended to be used only as a last resort to save life or to minimise serious injuries to the occupant(s), by parachuting the complete aeroplane to the ground.
The scope of these requirements is limited to ensuring that the airworthiness of the vehicle is not compromised by the installation of an emergency parachute system and to minimise the possibility of malfunction or inadvertent deployment likely to cause additional hazards to the aeroplane, its occupant(s), or personnel on the ground. The requirements do not ensure correct functioning of the parachute recovery system.
The fitment of such equipment is optional unless required minimum equipment.
The other advantage of a chute is that it will save you when you have flight control issues (if youre quick enough to react)… any other plane you are stuffed
