- Midair collision and loss of control
- Spatial disorientation in IMC resulting unusual attitude
- Night IMC instrument problems
- IMC with iced up pitot and rapidly approaching mountain
These lists of chute pulls tend to be a bit of a hostage to fortune, because people then ask inconvenient questions like
I am sure the details are out there somewhere (subject to most of the pilots prob99 not giving a full and frank account of what they were doing) but if you have a habit of flying in IMC with pitot heat turned off and rapidly approaching mountains, you are likely to bite the dust in some other way first 
But we have done this all before in this thread The complete list of SR22 chute pulls is somewhere further back, as of a few years ago. Sure, chute is better than no chute, but reading it illustrates what in some other field of human activity would be called deep structural issues. Some of it is probably a reduced level of risk compensation (which is a key factor in keeping GA accidents down) because the chute is seen as an escape route.
Their survival is more to luck than to skill
Yes being able to keep wing level and slow speeds is big luck factor
Peter wrote:
Sure, chute is better than no chute, but reading it illustrates what in some other field of human activity would be called deep structural issues.
It all goes back to the inherent risk of flying and the connected problems with it and you are right, there are deep structural issues.
However, most of these issues are not technical but human. Looking at causes of accidents, the overwhelming share is related to human error. Hence, it is actually quite a false pretext that BRS is primarily a good tool for SEP, as engine failures are a part of it but not the majority. Most accidents happen because people screw up badly, because their currency is absymal and their training does more often then not fail to prepare them for the stuff which really counts.
Flying SEP’s has been compared to riding motorcycles, which imho is a very dangerous pasttime I would never ever attempt and stop any family member of doing. Under these conditions, many of us may ask themselves why they still do fly, I’ve done that many times, particularly after bad accidents which make me question the safety of this whole hobby.
So your conclusion is very much to the point: the list of CAPS pulls demonstrates the trend that most of them are “unnecessary” from a technical standpoint but are the result of pilots maneuvering themselves into unhappy situations from which CAPS is a safe escape.
I guess the primary reason why airplanes without it are still allowed to be produced and operated is that regulators are so far willing to accept the risks involved as a matter of fact of life. And it is true that a mandate for BRS or similar systems would be over the top as long as far more dangerous stuff is still allowed.
But I would not be adverse to advocating a mandate for BRS systems on new airplanes. Not just SEP’s but all airplanes which are single pilot ops and below a certain weight. Cirrus would never have become the largest manufacturer without CAPS.
The one about IMC and approaching a mountain is bizzare. If the pilot was in IMC (could not see) but knew he was approaching a mountain (via some sort of satnav with terrain) why not turn away from the mountain?
Like I said, I bet most of the reports are not true accounts. Some 90% sound just too embarrassing.
The chute is a huge “family member(s) flying with you factor”. Almost every SR22 pilot I have known said that to me, but most won’t post it.
It is a great feature, and the result is that Cirrus have outsold everybody else. But it is an illusion to think it substantially improves flight safety, assuming you basically know what you are doing.
Yes I agree you don’t buy it because of technical reasons, you buy one because you know you will lose control of the aircraft one day…
For “pax appreciation”, it’s a different story, you buy whatever your pax likes you to get but again it’s rare to fly with family in “bumpy IMC with terrain” (flying at night VMC is well appreciated though)
Peter wrote:
The chute is a huge “family member(s) flying with you factor”. Almost every SR22 pilot I have known said that to me, but most won’t post it.
You might remember that my airplane is involved in an ATO which operates two SR22 and 2 vision jets. Practically ALL pilots who fly those things have said very openly that they highly appreciate the availability of CAPS for that very reason. And I don’t know a lot of people who have BRS planes available to them who would not fly in the night of low IMC on anything else if they can fly a CAPS plane.
Peter wrote:
But it is an illusion to think it substantially improves flight safety, assuming you basically know what you are doing.
That exactly is the problem: Pilots with currency like yourself are the huge exception, not the rule. Currency in this forum is totally atypical too. 99.9% of PPL’s are people who fly a few times a year, when the wife gives them a day off, who struggle to maintain minimum training and who are totally out of their depth the moment something other than normal ops happens. For people like that, CAPS is a huge improvement of safety.
The alternative would have to be to tighten rules on currency massively. 12 hours over 2 years is nowhere enough to maintain proficiency. I would say, nobody who flies less than 1ce a month should be let near an airplane alone, better would be a minimum of 10 flights per quarter or 3 flights per month with corresponding landings plus yearly refreshers. The other way could be to abolish time based rating renewal and mandate a PPL check ride every year or bi-annual as the US does it (Bi Annual flight review) and as it is required for IFR. Both of these measures would however massively reduce pilot population.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Fact is, engine failures do happen and often enough they lead to fatalities or at least people getting hurt severely.
It is actually surprisingly hard to get “facts on this fact”. How many fatalities do we have in Europe every year due to technical engine failures? How big is the problem solved by the chute really for us European pilots?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I honestly think that BRS is a total game changer if it is used the way Cirrus preaches it, as long as it does not lead to reckless flying “because we have that shute”.
But that is exactly the point: You can’t get the one without the other! As soon as you have introduced the chute you always will see pilots commencing flights they would not have done w/o the chute. I wouldn’t even call it reckless in all cases – it is just normal psychology that a perceived safety feature increases the risk tolerance.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Their survival is more to luck than to skill.
Given that I can’t remember a single case in Germany in recent years where a pilot actually died due to this (coming from an altitude where a chute would have made a difference so not initial climb of final approach) it either happens extremely rarely in the first place pilots are an extremely lucky bunch.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I have to admit, if I had the financial means to fly a BRS equipped plane or a twin, it would be my choice. Just because of that.
In other discussions, we pilots tend to construct a safety issue out of taxes or landing fees with the logic that if we invested the money into more training/experience, we would fly safer. Let’s apply the same logic here:
It is an unrealistic (but obviously true) statement to say “if I could chose between a plane w/o chute or the very same plane with chute at the very same cost, I’d cost the chute”.
realistically the cost of the chute in the Cirrus is about 2000 EUR/yr. (Calculation with 20k initial cost over 20 year and 10k every 10 years for maintenance). For 200EUR you’d get 5 to 10 hrs of really good flight instruction every year. What would on average have the higher safety benefit ?!?
The other way could be to abolish time based rating renewal and mandate a PPL check ride every year or bi-annual as the US does it (Bi Annual flight review) and as it is required for IFR.
I would not go that far giving how unrealistic the checkride setup but I agree the big elephant is it’s “pilot currency”, either flying hundreds of hours on same type & mission that you explored the risks in every corner or having flown load of hours in variety of types & mission where you can predict your risk profile accurately
To remove any residual pilot error (1 in one million hour), yes chute may help but as we know one usually bust or ignored 3 or 4 limits or safety nets before shit hit the fan, why they would use the chute? it’s just another 5th safety net?
Isn’t this a bit the same as a TKS installation? You are more willing to accept a risk of being in a potential challenging situation because the first mitigation is far less complex. Flip the switch as a first action. The same with CAPS, it is draping a psychological vail over the perceived risk and putting your mind at ease knowing you can pull the handle with a single action in case things go beyond your capabilities or the situation outcome is uncertain e.g engine failure at night. As a friend told me, flying a single engine fighter jet, your mind is at ease knowing that you have the ejection seat in case the fire goes out. Using CAPS as an argument to trigger a launch in low IMC which you wouldn’t do without CAPS is ignoring the reality I think….I agree on the night flying and over hostile terrain were CAPS may have a better outcome. A multi engine is a better solution imho… I never understood honestly if you can spend that kind of money, for sure a used multi engine or turbine pressurized would be my choice….
Malibuflyer wrote:
How many fatalities do we have in Europe every year due to technical engine failures? How big is the problem solved by the chute really for us European pilots?
I don’t have stats and anyway I am no friend of them. Personally, I have seen a few cases recently which made me very uncomfortable in terms of flying SEP’s. One was the crash of a brand new Acclaim Ultra in the US, where the aircraft burst into flames after landing on a highway. The pilot died about a month afterwards of his burns. Another was a M20J which crashed from a flat spin after loosing control during intermediate approach (Also US). There was another one in Italy and one in Spain, both flat spins, crashed and burnt. In short, there were too many in my recent memory and it made me question a lot of things. ALL of those I remember off hand were accidents where a CAPS deployment would have been possible.
Malibuflyer wrote:
But that is exactly the point: You can’t get the one without the other! As soon as you have introduced the chute you always will see pilots commencing flights they would not have done w/o the chute. I wouldn’t even call it reckless in all cases – it is just normal psychology that a perceived safety feature increases the risk tolerance.
Well, the shute does allow some sort of flying which usually is a risk many accept but is very high: Mainly flying at night and in low base IMC. I would not do either without a BRS equipped plane or a twin regularly and I feel very bad doing it occasionally, so I usually don’t. Reckless would be if people will fly VFR into IMC or similar because they rely on the shute if they loose control. Different thing.
Malibuflyer wrote:
For 200EUR you’d get 5 to 10 hrs of really good flight instruction every year. What would on average have the higher safety benefit ?!?
Where? 200 Euros does not even cover one hour of flying let alone with an instructor.
Malibuflyer wrote:
It is an unrealistic (but obviously true) statement to say “if I could chose between a plane w/o chute or the very same plane with chute at the very same cost, I’d cost the chute”.
No, sorry, that is the wrong conclusion. It is not only the cost of the shute, even though that is substantial as well.
I fly a plane I can (barely) afford, which at the time was some 30k in purchase and costs about 250-300 CHF to operate per hour. A Cirrus starts at 200k realistically, most good ones are massively higher and costs 400-600 CHF per hour to operate. Totally different league of airplane and people who can afford them.
Ibra wrote:
I agree the big elephant is it’s “pilot currency”, either flying hundreds of hours on same type & mission that you explored the risks in every corner or having flown load of hours in variety of types & mission where you can predict your risk profile accurately
I think that is the big one, yes. Most PPL pilots are massively lacking currency. They can afford to fly their 12 hours per 2 years (barely) in 200 Euro/hour C172’s or PA28’s, which gives about a budget of 2500 Euros per 2 years. Realistically, to have a proper currency, you should fly once a month for 2-3 hours, so about 20-30 hours per year, 40-60 for 2 years. In a Cirrus, that is 20-30k for a basic currency, in a 250 Euro plane that is about half that.
Of course we can say, if you can’t afford it, don’t fly. which is what many people do. But I have heard from many people that “if they had the money” they would fly a CAPS plane. So would I. But I can afford my old Mooney (barely) but there is no chance I can afford a SR22 or let alone a twin, which are between 500-1000 CHF per hour.
