Pilot_DAR wrote:
Well, at least once:
As far as I’m aware, nobody knows whether the parachute was deployed as an attempt to offset the inevitable or whether it was shot out as the flames caused the rocket to ignite and the chute to deploy…..looking at some of the videos, in particularly this video I would say that the case of the rocket being ignited because of the fire is made. The chute is WAY away from the aircraft, was not on fire nor were any power / telephone / telegraph cables damaged due to the chute tangling around it as some have declared.
What is interesting is that some have said that, because he was used to flying helicopters and knew he couldn’t make the field, he decided to attempt an emergency landing. It just underscores my Deck 1, Deck 2 scenario. He thought he could dead stick the aircraft and unfortunately he wasn’t lucky..
Which by the way, if I’m correct, just further underscores my thoughts that it wasn’t the CAPS which caused the aircraft to crash onto the car, killing it’s occupants, but an aircraft looking to touch down at 70 knots on a suburban street. As an afterthought, consider the energy of an aircraft descending under a fully deployed chute landing on the roof of a car. Now consider the energy of that same aircraft hitting that car frontal whilst attempting an emergency landing.
Which of these two impacts contains the most destructive energy?
Hint: it’s NOT whilst under the chute….
Pilot_DAR wrote:
Simply put, pilots have no right to drop things on, or near people.
So what makes it acceptable for pilots to run over people?
Let’s agree to disagree. You see the Chute as Satan’s work. I consider it to be an important contribution to safety.
mmgreve wrote:
but the data is hard to argue against (I don’t fly a Cirrus!)
I think that is the only reason why I think it is a sensible thing, you can’t argue against that 
For reference, the chute was designed in the SR20 to allow recovery from crazy spins in early certification, it turns out from the data it is a life saver!
So the marketing guys and skilled pilots put a lot of ink about pros/cons, but one thing for sure whatever scenarios you have in mind where CAPS does not work it turns out to work as life saver including at 200ft at 200kts, the physics of crash is well understood just “energy dissipation”: 90% of 0.5*1.3T*60kts^2 just vanishes in one second when the thing is pulled, you will have to work hard to do the same thing flying an aircraft
Ibra wrote:
So the marketing guys and skilled pilots put a lot of ink about pros/cons, but one thing for sure whatever scenarios you have in mind where CAPS does not work it turns out to work as life saver including at 200ft at 200kts, the physics of crash is well understood just “energy dissipation”: 90% of 0.5*1.3T*60kts^2 just vanishes in one second when the thing is pulled, you will have to work hard to do the same thing flying an aircraft
I don’t know what you’re inferring here but I think I can guess. If so, it’s not that simple. Once the chute is deployed, it takes more than a few seconds for it to deploy, firstly with the chute being ejected from it’s container, then the chute forming with line cutters ensuring that there’s no ‘snap’ opening which could rip the chute from it’s anchorage on the aircraft.
To see the full deployment and time scales, look
or
The reason why there is a minimum altitude is because the aircraft adopts a very high nose down attitude after initial deployment and that can cause serious injury….
I guess the reason it worked even when deployed outside it’s design parameters is mainly from aerodynamic breaking as it deploys, of course it takes more seconds to get wheels down first to cushion what is left as energy on wheels and seat absorbers (the only drawback is the aircraft would accelerate 15kts initially as it fires 40kg going back at 600kph before getting tension on the ropes )
Steve6443 wrote:
Let’s agree to disagree. You see the Chute as Satan’s work. I consider it to be an important contribution to safety.
I do not at all think of the Cirrus ‘chute as satan’s work, but rather a safety tool of identifiable value, which should be used with great caution.Yes, I have flown thousands of hours single engine over territory for which a parachute descent would have probably been safer than trying to “land” (trees, rocks and lakes). Had I the parachute, and needed it, I might have used it. Would I pay extra for a plane equipped with a parachute? Not my choice.
My concern is that it is marketed as the first option in an emergency, and seeming to attempt to reset the expectation that a pilot maintain the skill and judgement to execute effective forced landings. In my opinion, if equipped, it should be the last choice, rather than the first. I’m not saying that it should never be used, but if there is any chance that its use will put someone on the ground at a greater risk, the pilot should take the risk, rather than transfer that risk to the person on the ground. ’Same thing for attempting to land into a congested area – not acceptable. If the area is a beach, head for the ocean, if the whole area below you is congested, what were you doing flying there at all? When I transit Toronto, a safe downtown landing would be impossible. So I stay over the water, and would splash the plane. This, from actually had an engine failure, and happening to be able to glide onto the runway of the island airport. But not for that, it would have been the water.
I will never argue against any safety system. Nor will I criticize a pilot who satisfies themself that elaborate safety systems are not needed, because the normally accepted way of being safe is well managed. I’m just a little worried about pilots who think that they can accept more risk, or transfer that risk to people on the ground, because they have CAPs. Proviso in what I have said: Seat belts, and where appropriate, wearing a life jacket, are minimum safety equipment expectations.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
I’m just a little worried about pilots who think that they can accept more risk, or transfer that risk to people on the ground, because they have CAPs.
Once more you seem to infer that a deployment of CAPS → instant death & injury happens to innocent bystanders. This is NOT the case – and from the example you posted, I’m pretty sure that an earlier CAPS deployment would have led to a better outcome.
Bearing in mind we fly according to the laws of physics, why can’t you accept that an aircraft descending under a chute will have less energy to dissipate than an aircraft trying to land at 70 knots plus….?
Can everyone please keep this NON PERSONAL.
I have already removed one f-word. This is totally unnecessary on EuroGA. Guidelines. Writing tips.
A NTSB report on a 3-axis microlight with a PPL and Instructor said the instructor pulled the chute after an engine failure. With a strong wind, it was pulled along the canyon it landed in, killing the instructor and injuring the PPL.
Have any Cirrus deployments been in strong winds? Is there a " jettison chute" mechanism?
Steve6443 wrote:
why can’t you accept that an aircraft descending under a chute will have less energy to dissipate than an aircraft trying to land at 70 knots plus….?
It depends upon the amount of space, and absorbent non people are available to dissipate the energy of arrival. Chances of survival are inversely proportional to angle of arrival. An aircraft arriving at about 90 degrees to the surface, albeit much slower, has a very short distance to dissipate the energy of the descent. An airplane being flared onto the surface, with a decent amount of space ahead to dissipate the energy, can dissipate it over a longer distance and time. I have more experience than I wish I had with dissipating energy after landing.
The question was would I pull the ’chute. My answer is only as a very last resort in most circumstances. I would hope that I had a plan to not need to pull the ’chute, and everyone would be happier. If it was not my lucky day, it would be my second, but I know that I would not have put people on the ground at risk. My choice to pilot that way. I respect the choices others make which differ, they just may not be the same as mine….
Hang on a minute .
The question was would we have pulled the shute in the Situation Peter found himself in. My armchair gut answer is most probably not, as from that position a landing was very likely.
In almost any other situation, where landing without damage and danger is not reasonably assured I would definitely adhere to the Cirrus mantra.
I have in the meantime heard from a Cirrus owner and asked an insurance savvy person about the statement made to the OP and got the expected answer that it is totally ludicrous.
