I think the answer whether to pull or not to pull depends a lot on context, like weather conditions, surroundings, landing options.
That being said, I brief @eddsPeter’s situation regularly before departure with a SR22TN in Zürich.
My emergency briefing for departure RWY 28 in LSZH (1400ft MSL) goes something like this:
- Engine failure directly after rotate until ~1600ft: re-land straight ahead RWY 28
- Engine failure between 1600ft and 1900 ft: re-land RWY 28 or right turn and land RWY34, depending on wind, visibility
- Engine failure 1900ft to 3400ft: pull chute.
- Engine failure above 3400ft: try to return to RWY 10 (u-turn into the wind), if not confident to be able to make landing, pull chute during descent, latest at 2200ft
If it is hard IMC with cloud base above 800 ft agl, I think I would still try to do the same thing (synthetic vision will help), if cloud base below 700 ft, I would rather pull (otherwise I might break out of clouds, find that I cannot make the RWY, and cannot pull any more as too low).
With respect, if the aeroplane I fly had a chute, I’d have a procedure to use it. No different to an ejection procedure.
Everybody I fly with would also be briefed on its operation.
Id make sure to use it unless I was 100% able to glide to an aerodrome, just like Cirrus recommend.
Its been proven to work and save lives.
eddsPeter wrote:
the insurance would only pay, if in case of emergency the chute is pulled,
Is that an urban legend or have you actually seen the insurance terms? It’s >5 yrs ago that I’ve flown a Cirrus but I’m absolutely sure that at these days in Germany the insurance had no such clause.
To the broader question:
Having started my flying in gliders I’m not as scared as many “Cirrus-Doctors” seem to be about an off airfield power off landing. It’s something quite normal! Glide angle of a Cirrus is not so bad (even compared with some vintage gliders) and the stall speed is only 35km/h higher than that of some open class gliders.
Therefore if terrain is suitable why not just land it in case of engine failure?!?
Needless to say, that the chute gives additional options specifically in cases where either the terrain is not suitable or the problem is not the engine but the control surfaces or pilot incantation…
Btw: Is there any example of a pilot who died in Europe during the failed attempt of an off airport no power landing after an engine failure in let’s say the last 20 years?
@Malibuflyer wrote:
Is that an urban legend or have you actually seen the insurance terms? It’s >5 yrs ago that I’ve flown a Cirrus but I’m absolutely sure that at these days in Germany the insurance had no such clause.
I haven‘t seen the contract. But even if it is a urban legend, the most import for and most strange was, that an experienced pilot feels after Cirrus training (pull early, pull often) and his interpretation of the insurance guidelines, to be in a situation with no other opportunities than to pull. And I asked the question: Would you really pull although you could be sure to make it back to the runway? The answer was: Yes!
pull early, pull often
Does anybody else think about a birth control slogan when they read this or is it just me ?
Ibra wrote:
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
That’s really all anyone needs to know about chutes. That being said, a required skill for operating a SEP is to be able to land that thing (in a survivable fashion) when the engine suddenly quits. This skill is both a stick and rudder type skill as well as a operational/planning type skill.
There are maybe 10? 50? 100? times as many microlights flying with a chute as there are Cirruses. It’s a bit peculiar that in microlight circuits the question of chute vs no chute is either required by law, which put a lid on any discussion, or is a personal choice, which also kind of make discussions irrelevant. But in PPL circuits the chute or no chute is always a heated topic. Why is that? I really don’t know.
It’s probably better to think of it this way: Given the choice of including a chute at a reasonable extra cost, would you do it? Of course you would, that’s only human nature.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Having started my flying in gliders I’m not as scared as many “Cirrus-Doctors” seem to be about an off airfield power off landing. It’s something quite normal! Glide angle of a Cirrus is not so bad (even compared with some vintage gliders) and the stall speed is only 35km/h higher than that of some open class gliders
Yes but you can use airbraks in gliders, try an off-field book landing with no air-breaks?
It may work as as you can fly at 2kts above 40kts stall in a Discus: it just flies silently
SR20 does not handle well anywhere between 55kts-70kts, so the speed gap is is more in the 30kts and the chock impact is quadratic in speed 
, the bill for dropping nose/wing in the SR20 trying to fit it in the field is more likely the chute
Given the choice of including a chute at a reasonable extra cost, would you do it? Of course you would, that’s only human nature.
If it costs the same as a jump parachute (2k$), I am sure everybody will retro-fit
ivark wrote:
I’m wondering how much does the insurance cover? I mean for cars the insurance typically covers the current market value, not the cost of the new car.. I imagine 10 year old cirrus costs about 1/2 of new unit cost..
In cars, and in planes, this is actually an option on the insurance, leading to different premiums.
In the countries I’m familiar with, the most expensive insurance will cover the cost of the new car for the first N year, for some value of N. After that, it switches to market value. Cheaper insurances cover market value from the first minute.
In aviation insurance, this is called “betterment”. I’m not sure if it is offered on a whole-plane basis, since I never insured a (near-)new plane.
Here’s the Cirrus Guide to CAPS: https://cirrusaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPS_Guide.pdf
It also answers eddsPeters question:
• Engine Failure Over a Runway – During engine failures within gliding distance of a
runway, the pilot must continually evaluate the situation.
– At 2,000 ft AGL, if the landing is assured the pilot may continue to the runway. If not
assured then activate CAPS.
– At 1,000 ft AGL, if the landing is still assured, the pilot may continue, recognizing that
the risks associated with landing short, runway overrun or low altitude loss of control
likely exceed those of a timely CAPS deployment. If the landing is not assured by at
least 400 ft (561 ft G5) AGL the pilot should immediately activate CAPS.
I fly Cirrus and stick to the recommendations in this guide. This also means that I will chose CAPS deployment over an off field landing…
• Engine Failure Not Over a Runway – If a forced landing is required onto any surface
other than a runway, CAPS activation is strongly recommended. If a forced landing over
rough or mountainous terrain, over water, in fog, at night, or in low IMC conditions is
required, CAPS activation is strongly recommended.
Ibra wrote:
Yes but you can use airbraks in gliders, try an off-field book landing with no air-breaks?
Yes – but that’s a different story. A Cirrus sideslips quite well – destroying lots of speed.
But of course there’s an obvious difference between the off field landings we do in gliders and power off off field landings in SEP (any, not only the Cirrus): Goal of a glider off filed landing is to pack the plane into the trailer, drive back to the airport and start again. Goal in a SEP is to survive – and there’s quite a margin between these two outcomes.
In the end, one can’t beat statistics: If no pilot died while trying to do an off field power off landing in the last 20 years in Europe, there’s no life that could have been saved in such a situation by a chute.
Knowing this I would still buy a chute if reasonably priced! It is of course an additional option in case the plane won’t fly anymore (and some comfort for passengers).
