Cirrus makes good use of it's ballistic chute in UK

[planedriver]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22806727 .

[Head in the clouds]

Hmmm - yet another Cirrus comes down under canopy. They spent so much time, money and energy convincing people that these planes don't bite that folks have taken it quite literally and these 'crash-proof' planes are rapidly getting the statistics that indicate they're more prone to incidents than other types.

 

Unfortunately their 'stallproof' claims are probably the reason people have flown them in fatal 'low and slow and tight' maneouvres, and have frequently shown that they do bite, often in the circuit. Not only that but the BRS seems to be becoming an increasingly good excuse for some people to push on into bad weather or over tiger country, when they most likely wouldn't do so in a non-BRS equipped plane. The chilling aspect that's causing upset among flyers in USA at present is that the 'saved lives' are likely to become the Regulators' excuse for making BRS compulsory, in case they be accused of not correctly managing the 'safety' aspect of aviation. There's also considerable anecdotal evidence floating around that the BRS manufacturers themselves have been putting up a powerful and convincing lobby to the FAA.

 

In terms of this incident, I wonder what's with the bent prop tips? Looks like a pretty serious prop strike rather than just an idling engine. So was the engine running under canopy? It looks more likely he had a prop-strike on take-off or landing and did a go-around, and thought better of continuing when the vibrations got bad. It'll be interesting if we ever get an explanation.

 

 

[Gforce]

You raise some good points - I wonder if the stats back up that BRS equipped aircraft fly into weather or over tiger country more than non equipped BRS aircraft because pilots think " oh well.. I can always pull the handle " ... Hmm.....

 

 

[Gentreau]

There is video of this particular incident which appears to show the plane coming down under canopy with the motor revving it's guts out, which may explain the prop damage. There is also a large area of open grass 200m from the place where he ended up, which could have been good for a forced landing. So far there's no information regarding the pilot's reasons for pulling the chute....

 

.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

There is video of this particular incident which appears to show the plane coming down under canopy with the motor revving it's guts out, which may explain the prop damage. There is also a large area of open grass 200m from the place where he ended up, which could have been good for a forced landing. So far there's no information regarding the pilot's reasons for pulling the chute.....

Interesting - thanks Gentreau. In the short moment of the video clip posted here you can't tell if the engine is running or not but if it was 'revving its guts out' then the prop couldn't have been turning because the thrust would have turned the whole lot into an Aerochute or similar, but instead of that it was just descending like a normal parachute descent.

 

So, maybe he made a terrible landing with a big bounce and tried to force it onto the ground, wheelbarrowed, struck the prop and then got airborne again. Shortly afterwards the crank broke behind the thrust bearing (so the prop stayed attached) and the engine continued to rev. Just guessing.

 

 

[Gforce]

Where is the inflight video ???

 

 

[Gentreau]

Where is the inflight video ???

Here. It's very brief, but you can hear what appears to be the engine revving high.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2336815/Pilot-76-walks-away-plane-crash-just-minor-injuries-deploying-emergency-PARACHUTE-allowed-light-aircraft-float-safety-quiet-Cheltenham-garden.html

 

 

[Gforce]

Thanks - Wonder why he did not shut down ? I guess looking at a garden 60 feet below may of got his attention...

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Thanks again Gentreau. Sounds like it was a constant speed prop in fine pitch so maybe that's why it isn't towing the parachute around. Maybe he'd lost control of the prop's pitch? Should still have been able to fly in fine pitch, at least enough to get it on the ground at the nearby airport - you'd think so anyway. The photos on that link are much better, you can see where the prop struck the pathway in the back yard.

 

 

[Gentreau]

It's also interesting to look at the location on Google Maps (Langdale Road, Cheltenham, United Kingdom).

 

It begs the question why he was unable to perform a forced landing on the nearby school playing fields ...

 

.

 

 

[Ultralights]

"left the aircraft intact" really, both wings destroyed, rear fuselage severely damaged...

 

and by prop damage, the engine was still making power..

 

interested to know why he went the chute option.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Wouldn't mind so much if it landed in my yard provided I got to keep it....

 

 

[Yenn]

The reason they have recovery chutes is because they could not demonstrate an ability to recover from a spin. The chute is to make up for poor flying ability>

 

 

[planedriver]

Great looking aircraft, but Gee'z! there's been a fair few similar incidents now with the Cirrus, and I couldn't believe that the prop was so bent.

 

It was obviously still turning at the time of impact, but good to know that the BRS did what it was designed to do, and the PIC was OK.

 

I seem to have heard more reports of the chute saving it's occupants with the Cirrus, than all the other general ultralights or LSA's where they are fitted.

 

Maybe, Head in the Clouds is somewhere close to the truth with regards to pushing the limit's, or it giving a false sense of security.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Hmmm - yet another Cirrus comes down under canopy. They spent so much time, money and energy convincing people that these planes don't bite that folks have taken it quite literally and these 'crash-proof' planes are rapidly getting the statistics that indicate they're more prone to incidents than other types.Unfortunately their 'stallproof' claims are probably the reason people have flown them in fatal 'low and slow and tight' maneouvres, and have frequently shown that they do bite, often in the circuit. Not only that but the BRS seems to be becoming an increasingly good excuse for some people to push on into bad weather or over tiger country, when they most likely wouldn't do so in a non-BRS equipped plane. The chilling aspect that's causing upset among flyers in USA at present is that the 'saved lives' are likely to become the Regulators' excuse for making BRS compulsory, in case they be accused of not correctly managing the 'safety' aspect of aviation. There's also considerable anecdotal evidence floating around that the BRS manufacturers themselves have been putting up a powerful and convincing lobby to the FAA.

 

In terms of this incident, I wonder what's with the bent prop tips? Looks like a pretty serious prop strike rather than just an idling engine. So was the engine running under canopy? It looks more likely he had a prop-strike on take-off or landing and did a go-around, and thought better of continuing when the vibrations got bad. It'll be interesting if we ever get an explanation.

Hi Alan,. . .

 

Because it wasn't a fatal, it will probably pop up in the AAIB crash comic with a "One Paragraph" report fairly quickly. I saw this one in the newspapers but have not really looked into what actually happened. Shame,. . .nice aeroplane.

 

Phil

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

The reason they have recovery chutes is because they could not demonstrate an ability to recover from a spin. The chute is to make up for poor flying ability>

In my opinion that was a very cheeky and untruthful part of their Type Certification package.

 

It seems they limited the elevator authority (insufficient deflection angle) so that the main wing cannot be brought to the stall angle in a progressive stall (the Ercoupe principle). Then they had their stall fence and split wing incidence, meaning that the outboard section of the wing wouldn't initially be stalled if the inboard section did happen to be ... so the ailerons would still be effective at the onset of stall (a good feature). Then they went through their flight testing/proving regime and declared that the aircraft couldn't be stalled and so they can't spin it. Because of that they said they couldn't comply with the spin recovery demonstration requirement - imo it was more like they didn't want to, because their marketing department wanted to maintain the illusion that it was unspinnable. So they were made to fit a BRS, which at the already exhorbitant price of the aircraft was a very minor cost increase, and the marketing department were able to go to town on this added 'safety feature'.

 

So, nice as the interior and avionics package is, the plane mainly appeals, imho, to the less confident pilot - a big market - who imagine that it's 'superior qualities' will make up for his/her lack of ability, as you said Yenn.

 

The point is that of course the Cirrus, like any aircraft, is spinnable. It's just that it's spin resistant, meaning that you can't bring it to the stall progressively but any accelerated (zoom) stall will do the job and then, as several have shown, it spins just fine.

 

The BRS companies are quick to claim, every time a plane comes down under a chute and living people walk away, that their product 'saved their lives' when in fact they most likely would have landed perfectly safely without the chute. In many cases, without the false comfort of having the BRS, they wouldn't have been cavalier enough to enter a situation that got on top them in the first place. And the BRS companies never mention the number of people their product has killed from inadvertent activation on the ground (and in the air), or people that used them and still died in the impact and who probably would have landed fine without the chute. Admittedly they are few and I'm not completely against BRS by any means, particularly because they allow a pax to get the aircraft on the ground if a pilot is incapacitated. However I do think there should be very severe penalties for a pilot's use of them where they have got themselves into bad weather or terrain, the penalties being for "dangerous operation of an aircraft" - consider the pax who are unwittingly put in peril in these situations. Similar offences in a car brings a jail term. Also consider that once the chute is deployed there is no control over where the plane lands, the one in the example above forced a building worker to run ... this pilot operated the chute over a built-up area ...

 

 

[Teckair]

All good points HITC the chute should be for structural failure or engine failure in unsurviveable situations. I have known of pilots who are not the best who think a chute will save them if they have an engine failure and some who think the Aerochute is a good idea for the same reason.

 

 

[Gentreau]

......Also consider that once the chute is deployed there is no control over where the plane lands, the one in the example above forced a building worker to run ... this pilot operated the chute over a built-up area ...

My thoughts too. When you look at the area in my link above, he probably had a 50% chance of landing on a house or car, very fortunate to hit something relatively soft.

 

I am also left wondering how low he was if he felt unable to make the open ground approx 1km to the SW or Gloucester airport which was apparently his destination. Historical METAR data shows that the wind was variable but generally northeasterly around 7-8 KTS which would have been somewhat stronger and more easterly with altitude, which would have helped the glide to either area......

 

Please note I do not imply any specific criticism of the pilot in this incident, simply asking questions to promote reflection, in myself and hopefully others.

 

 

[68volksy]

I do love the British attitude to it all though. The lady standing proudly smiling next to the plane that almost crashed through their house.

 

I'd love to see an American take on the same accident... :)

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I do love the British attitude to it all though. The lady standing proudly smiling next to the plane that almost crashed through their house.I'd love to see an American take on the same accident... :)

Yes. . . D'you remember the comments made by the nice American lady after an F117A stealth broke up in the air at a local airshow and fell onto her house ??

 

She said. . ."Gee,. . . . A'hm sure glad we weren't at home when that happened. . " Reasonable take on that incident, but she Was Not smiling. . . .

 

Phil