Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Cirrus BRS / chute discussion, and would you REALLY pull it?

tomw wrote:

Anecdotal I believe the DA40 is very safe. I’ve never flown one. But I understand that overall they have a notably good safety record.

One of the safest SEPs in the world. Read somewhere that Cirrus introduced that “pull early” thing as response to being not that safe. In the end Cirrus IS a fast plane and if you don’t know what you are doing with an engine out, it will not be great…

EGTR

Cool! Finally we got some real data to talk about. Thanks to all that posted (esp. Steve).

Let’s look at these cases as I think – independent from abstract chute discussions – there are some common themes all of us can learn from these cases, the best that can happen after tragic events like accidents (all info from the respective accident reports):

D-EASI did not try an emergency Landing, G-YAKB changed landing site in short final (which is never a good idea).

In all other cases where accident reports are available (V35B near Regenstauf, G-BAHY, G-AZRP) the trigger of death/injury was a failure of the pilot to “fly the aircraft until it hits the ground”. In all of these cases the problem was not what has been quoted in this thread before, that the aircraft hit an obstacle, hole in the ground, etc., capsized and crashed but that the aircraft was stalled before it hit the ground and therefore crashed uncontrollably.

I could not find any case yet, where a proper off field landing lead to fatalities.

That leads me to the conclusion, that a) many pilots seem to have so much panic in an off field landing situation, that they forget basic airmanship and b) there is an obvious training deficit in terms of off field landings.

Therefore, yes a chute could have a positive effect on some of these cases. But even more important is, to train off field landings much better and to teach all pilots, that this is a quite normal thing to do and not a big deal if done properly – rather than something one needs to panic about.

Germany

kwlf wrote:

In a cub you’re very likely to walk away.

Given what we see in the accident reports (my previous post) the interesting question is if that is due to the characteristics of the cub or due to a different attitude/training of typical cub pilots compared to typical beech/Monney/Cirrus Pilots ?!?

Germany

tomw wrote:

Wow.

This thread is exposing some people who will go the whole hog to justify the unjustified.

How about instead of sniping from the side, you actually explain what you mean? I was asked to state the case of when an off field landing led to a death because the poser of the question didn’t believe that it happens. Others chipped in which show just how common an occurrence it is.

By ‘justifying the unjustified’ – are you referring to pulling? Well, if pulling means my passenger and I will survive as opposed to them facing death and serious injury, as well as subjecting others outside of the aircraft to the risk of death and injury, the question is why do you consider saving peoples lives unjustifiable?

Last Edited by Steve6443 at 14 Jan 08:03
EDL*, Germany

Malibuflyer wrote:

I could not find any case yet, where a proper off field landing lead to fatalities.

In all of these cases the problem was not what has been quoted in this thread before, that the aircraft hit an obstacle, hole in the ground, etc., capsized and crashed but that the aircraft was stalled before it hit the ground and therefore crashed uncontrollably.

You missed out on D-EERB. This was engine failure due to engine exhaustion. The plane hit some trees as it approached the chosen field, flipped upside down, landed on it’s back. There is also the case of D-ELTK which attempted a forced landing after flying half an hour, declaring a mayday. To me, it is irrelevant how the fatality came about – whether the pilot stalled, swapped the field, hit an obstacle – the net result is fatalities occurred which could have been avoided under the chute.

Malibuflyer wrote:

D-EASI did not try an emergency Landing, G-YAKB changed landing site in short final (which is never a good idea).

The aircraft I’m referring to was attempting to land when the engine quit – please note that D-EASI was a P28A, it’s now in use for a Cirrus. The fact that the pilot was probably overwhelmed and didn’t fly according to basic airmanship – best glide speed, select flaps as appropriate, etc, etc, – doesn’t mean that he didn’t attempt to perform an emergency landing. He did the best he could which, sadly, wasn’t good enough. Lizard brain and all that. Had he had the option of the chute, he could have pulled and survived.

Malibuflyer wrote:

Therefore, yes a chute could have a positive effect on some of these cases. But even more important is, to train off field landings much better and to teach all pilots, that this is a quite normal thing to do and not a big deal if done properly – rather than something one needs to panic about.

I’ll agree with that. When flying a P28A, every second flight was a practiced forced landing from 2000 feet down to the runway. However you’re missing one teeny weeny point, and your criticism of the G-YAKB accident showed this up.

That field, which you selected as optimum whilst 3000 feet up, might look pretty smooth. But as you get lower, you see objects on it. Ruts. Wire fences. You might be pretty cool and calm in your flying of a forced landing but it the field is not suitable – and you won’t known this until you get closer – then you might not have an option but to change your mind about the field – I’m assuming the G-YAKB pilot had a choice of crashing in a field he recognised as he got lower that was unsuitable which would lead to death and destruction or changing his field. As I’ve said, that field you chose. It only needs a small rut for your 6 inch wheels to dig in, flip you.

Try driving off road at 65 – 70 mph. Because that’s how fast a C172 or P28A is on short final. Imagine you’re on two 6 inch wheels, bouncing over ruts on suspension which isn’t designed to be going off road. Think it will hold? The Cirrus seats, the Cirrus undercarriage is designed to withstand the load of landing under the chute, it’s why some aircraft have been put back into service after landing under chute. Indeed, one Cirrus has been exposed to two chute landings and is still in service.

Last Edited by Steve6443 at 14 Jan 08:19
EDL*, Germany

Hi Steve – I think we are mentally not far away from each other – therefore I’m not criticizing just amending what you wrote:

- On D-EERB the accident report states at several points that one cause of the accident/outcome (beyond many other mistakes we are not discussing here) is exactly that instead of trying an off field landing (according to accident report there have been ample and suitable off field landing areas just in front of the airplane*) the pilot tried to get back to the airfield. That would therefore perfectly fit into my category “pilot so scared about an off field landing that he causes a crash”
- Agree that in theory it could happen that the chosen spot is unsuitable for a landing. But does that happen in practice? The Yak accident report sounds more like the pilot thought there is an even better option rather than the original decision turned out to be impossible. With my limited and quite some time ago glider experience I have about 10 off field landings under my belt – in none of the 10 cases the chosen field turned out to be unsuitable and had to be changed in final. I still assume it’s at least 90% a training thing (which glider pilots receive and SEP pilots don’t)
- I don’t know and don’t care if the wheels will fall off the plan when trying to land. It’s all about survival. And as we still did not identify a single case where broken wheels or a rollover caused the casualties,I think it’s safe to assume that these cases are quite rare.

I think in the end there’s pretty clear consensus:
- A chute doesn’t hurt. If one has the option to get one for one’s plane one should. It does not harm safety as long as it is not a factor in any before accident decision making. (It gets a factor if pilots start to think like “… conditions are at the edge but I have a chute and therefore can risk more …”.
- Off field landings are not as dangerous as many pilots believe – they, however, need extensive training and practice – we should always strive to practice them as often as possible
- Fly the aircraft until it hits the ground. If we do, the chance of survival is extremely high. Failure to do so is almost always deadly.

*For those who understand German:
“Das Flugzeug befand sich im Bereich großflächiger und ebener landwirtschaflichen Nutzflächen, die für eine Notlandung des Flugzeuges sehr gut geeignet und ohne große Kursänderung im Gleitflug erreichbar waren …
Der Flugunfall war darauf zurück zu führen, dass der Pilot … nach dem Triebwerksausfall trotz erreichbarer, geeigneter Notlandegelände versuchte, den Zielflugplatz noch zu erreichen”

Last Edited by Malibuflyer at 14 Jan 08:24
Germany

Malibuflyer wrote:

I still assume it’s at least 90% a training thing

The problem is that when your engine quits, you are in a very stressful situation and the human brain as marvelous as it is, may sometimes not work the way we hope in these stress situations. The worse is that it is difficult to predict how your brain will react in an emergency situation. Training will of course help and the fact that one has repeated the required actions will make it more likely that he will do them when required, but alas, not always… Hence, one could be very good at practicing off airport landing, but still get it wrong when the engine quits and one actually have to land with no engine.
Malibuflyer wrote:

is if that is due to the characteristics of the cub or due to a different attitude/training of typical cub pilots compared to typical beech/Monney/Cirrus Pilots

I fly a cub, and I think it is more due to its flying characteristics. A cub is light, lands quite short and a at a fairly low speed. For instance, I use 55kt on short final. I only had one instruction flight on a Cirrus SR20, and it seems like you need 75kt on short final (I have not flown beech nor Mooney, so I cannot speak for these).

Fly safe everyone!

ENVA, Norway

Steve6443 wrote:

Try driving off road at 65 – 70 mph. Because that’s how fast a C172 or P28A is on short final. Imagine you’re on two 6 inch wheels, bouncing over ruts on suspension which isn’t designed to be going off road. Think it will hold?=

I think the comparison is not very valid: C172 & PA28A are stable platforms at 55kts and you can’t compare them to an off road car crash as the 1.5T weight is not fully on the wheels unless if you push it with the stick or stall it the real question is why one would endanger himself and pax by flying a fast SEP with dodgy flying characteristics under no engine anywhere bellow 85kts? I think that risk is still acceptable for everybody here including Cirrus flyers (most of them have logged 250h with no chute before )

While I would love to have a chute in fast SEPs to mitigate some of the risks, I still think flying an SR20 does involve exactly the same amount of risk (CFIT & weather & pilot error being are my main ones) and engine off is an acceptable for me, I had 5 forced landings: 3 in gliders (one in highlands terrain), one per-cautionary in TMG in a potato field (hot oil) and one when C172 donkey quits (my fault fuel starvation), two of these were interesting and load of landing in the Cub where I try to make it fun nipping the trees but I make no mistake on my ability to land an Arrow/Mooney/Beech with engine off

Last Edited by Ibra at 14 Jan 10:31
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

How can I practice for an off field landing? The actual touch down etc..?

My flightschool had authority approval to fly below minimum alt for training purposes, and we did off field training (select farmer’s field, structure approach etc..) but never landed.

We did countless spotlandings off course landing at airfields.

Last Edited by Snoopy at 14 Jan 14:36
always learning
LO__, Austria

Snoopy wrote:

How can I practice for an off field landing? The actual touch down etc..?

In most of Europe, you can’t!
If I understand correctly, in Norway, i think you can if you have the prior permission from the land owner and probably some other restrictions (not quite sure)… There are quite a few private airfield around Trondheim that makes you feel like you’re landing off airport :-)

ENVA, Norway
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top