Nice BRS save. (Cirrus out of fuel over ocean.)

[Garfly]

[facthunter]

Didn't like the way the chute towed it through the water. Could easily have been a problem Nev

 

 

[aj_richo]

Nice soft ditching..

 

same thoughts with having the chute pull the aircraft over , do they have a cutaway system?

 

Was thinking if it hadn't gone under it would have sailed all the way to Hawaii!

 

..and picked up by an Ocean Liner to boot!

 

 

[David Isaac]

I had always thought they were supposed to auto release when they unloaded from ground/water impact.

 

The failure to release was noted in the C162 spin certification testing incident where the test pilot actiavted the BRS due to an uncontrolled spin; the 162 landed ok under the BRS but was destroyed because the chute dragged the aircraft some distance to destruction.

 

 

[Garfly]

I was impressed with how gently it set him down upon the waves; that he was able to take his time, calmly opening the canopy and seeming to prepare his exit plan with his raft and stuff. One can't imagine such an orderly transition to seafaring mode in any kind of ditching situation.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Absolutely garfly it would be an awful lot rougher ditching without the chute.

 

David having an automatic disconnect would scare me, even a manual cutoff would scare me although in a ditching situation like this it would be a good thing, I would just be always worried about it disconnecting prematurely eg at height.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I was impressed with how gently it set him down upon the waves; that he was able to take his time, calmly opening the canopy and seeming to prepare his exit plan with his raft and stuff. One can't imagine such an orderly transition to seafaring mode in any kind of ditching situation.

He didn't have that much time, the BRS capsized the aircraft, his raft wasn't even fully inflated when he got into it.

The aircarft impacted at :52 seconds and was capsized at :27 seconds. That is only 30 seconds to get out. That is BS if there had been 4 POB, that would have been a major safety issue. I would say Cirrus have some serious disconnection thinking top do in these circumstances ... BUT still better than ditching at 80 knots I guess.

 

I would say that if the BRS had disconnected there is no reason the AC wouldn't have remained floating for some time. Being a Cirrus it would be relatively airtight and the door opens above the wing.

 

 

[Garfly]

Yes, David, and his empty tanks would have helped keep it afloat for a while, too. And if the wind had been higher it could have been worse without a way to cut loose.

 

But what struck me was the time available to prepare (and to brief, had pax been involved) in the minute or so before impact - as opposed to the panicked final moments of a conventional ditching.

 

 

[apm]

Don't understand the subject title of this thread, does it mean having a BRS makes it ok for cirrus drivers to mismanage fuel endurance.

 

looks to me he's a long way from any destination! We don't know the details but a good fuel/time log should alert any fuel problem long before he got to a point of no return. He called coast guard at 1000 mi to run, that last 750 mi to BRS release would have been sobering.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Ah he had plenty of fuel on board, more than enough to finish the leg, just couldn't get it out of the ferry tanks and into the engine. Of course the media just neglect to mention that for the sake of added drama.

 

As for a cutaway system, be good idea but who activates it? Says liability lawyers A enlarged version of a skydivers 3 ring system may work and then again seen a few hang up.

 

 

[facthunter]

The ROD will be available. With the area hitting the water it will be fairly abrupt, probably more sudden than it looks. It usually makes the plane a right off in normal circumstances, so I wouldn't be surprised if there could be some spinal injuries. If the sea is very rough the chances of a soft touchdown are pretty remote, but otherwise, especially if the plane is a low wing retract, you should have a good chance of ditching without much drama if you know the right technique.. Most high wing fixed gear bury the nose in the water after the first contact. The speed you hit the water is crucial. Nev

 

 

[robinsm]

begs the question, why did he run out of fuel??

 

 

[facthunter]

Reserve tanks couldn't be made to feed, so ozzie says (and I have no reason to disbelieve such a reliable source of information) Nev

 

 

[Bennyboy320]

He didn't run out of fuel, he was unable to transfer the fuel from the ferry tank, technical problem not pilot error.

 

 

[Garfly]

Jeez, even if he had been at fault, I'd have hated for him to have paid with his life for it.

 

It was always going to be a 'nice save' in my book.

 

Anyway, on checking the video again, I see he had a good 3 minutes of stabilised descent and a full minute messing about on the wing before the 'chute dragged the plane over and swamped it. I got to thinking that maybe he delayed inflating his raft - fearing it would blow away - because the wing, at first, seemed the better bet.

 

I was a bit surprised by how basic his little raft was for such a long oceanic leg.

 

 

[SDQDI]

I suppose being on a long leg with ferry tanks, weight and size of a raft would be limited. I have never really looked into life rafts for light aircraft but I would have guessed they would have to be a lot smaller than the ones on boats or commercial flights.

 

Having said that you wouldn't want to spend a couple of days in it

 

 

[Bennyboy320]

One man raft, looks very similar to the ones fitted in ejection seats, just looked at the BRS web page, 322 lives saved & counting, its definately the first option to be fitted to my Foxbat, when I buy one.

 

 

[av8vfr]

I think having notified the authorities such a long way out indicates he was monitoring fuel and probably did all he could to transfer fuel.

 

If what I read above is true, I doubt it would have been his preference to pull the handle.

 

I did note the door open on descent as I was taught for ditching, because impact may distort the airframe and lock you in.. maybe more so in ally aircraft than glass??

 

 

[SDQDI]

I did note the door open on descent as I was taught for ditching, because impact may distort the airframe and lock you in.. maybe more so in ally aircraft than glass??

I thought he had the door open because his big fan stopped working and he was getting hot:surrender:

 

But on a serious note I was also taught that

 

 

[facthunter]

You can unlatch the door if you think it may jamb but if the plane is going to possibly submerge It might be better to keep the water out. If you believe the chute is the answer the distortion thing should not be a factor. Being dragged through the water is positively dangerous. It could totally impede you getting out of the plane. I bet it was unexpected. Nev

 

 

[kgwilson]

Details from Associated Press below. It seems like the plane was destined for Australia. The insurance company will be half a million out of pocket I guess.

 

"Two small planes ran out of fuel and crash-landed into the Pacific Ocean off Hawaii on the same day, with one briefly nose-diving before leveling out and drifting down to the water beneath a massive parachute.

 

The five people aboard the planes survived after dramatic rescues, authorities said.

 

In one of the crashes, the pilot put down the aircraft near a cruise ship and was pulled aboard it in a life raft amid giant waves.

 

The National Transportation Safety Board said Monday it is investigating the separate incidents, which occurred Sunday.

 

One of the planes, a single-engine aircraft carrying only a pilot, crash-landed about 250 miles off Maui. The other plane was carrying four people and went down several miles off Oahu.

 

NTSB investigator Josh Cawthra said both planes sank, and he didn't know if they would be recovered. He said he had not yet spoken with either pilot and had few other details.

 

Dramatic Coast Guard video shows the plane carrying just the pilot — a Cirrus SR22 traveling from California to Maui — as it releases its parachute. The plane drops nose-first and then levels out and plops into the sea.

 

The pilot escapes out the top of the aircraft and drifts away in a small raft.

 

The SR22 pilot traveling from Tracy, California, radioed authorities at 12:30 p.m. about plans to ditch the aircraft because of dwindling fuel. The plane has a range of about 1,200 miles — only half the distance to Maui — but it was equipped with an auxiliary fuel system, according to Cawthra.

 

The Coast Guard directed the plane to go down near a cruise ship, and the pilot deployed the parachute system around 4:45 p.m. and safely got into a life raft. Amid 9- to 12-foot seas and winds of 25 to 28 mph, the cruise-ship crew rescued the pilot, who was in good condition, authorities said.

 

Parachutes are standard equipment on the SR22, and all other aircraft manufactured by Duluth, Minnesota-based Cirrus Aircraft, according to company spokesman Ben Kowalski.

 

He said parachutes have been deployed on Cirrus aircrafts in 51 incidents, and are responsible for saving a total of 104 lives, including the pilot in Sunday's crash.

 

Kowalski said he was not at liberty to identify the pilot, an agent who was en route to Australia to deliver the aircraft to an owner. The SR22's starting price is listed at $499,900.

 

In a second crash Sunday, a single-engine Cessna flying from Kauai to Oahu with four people aboard declared an emergency at 6:18 p.m., saying fuel was running low and the plane might need to ditch, the Coast Guard said.

 

It crash-landed about 11 miles west of Oahu, and a Coast Guard helicopter rescued three adults and one child.

 

All four received emergency treatment, but their conditions were not immediately available."

 

 

[Garfly]

Ozzie's amazing .gif animation suggests a possible solution for dumping the 'chute.

 

Though I suppose Cirrus thinks the idea too cumbersome to implement (given how neatly they hide the risers in the skin of the fuselage).

 

The issue of keeping a ditched aircraft afloat was once raised on the BMAA SkyRanger forum.

 

One chap tells how he filled his wing cavities, part of the rear fuselage etc., with polystyrene foam as some kind of insurance for his channel crossings. He'd done all the calculations regarding displacement, W&B etc. (He tells us that 5kg of foam gives 300+litres of displacement). One of his forum mates asks when he's taking his Skyranger down to the local lake to test his theory. LOL.

 

http://forums.bmaa.org/default.aspx?f=32&m=53403

 

Anyway, I think I'd like to have the BRS option, as well, if I ever ventured across to Tassie. My main fear of conventional ditching is getting knocked senseless in the initial violence (talking fixed gear here) after which, nought would matter.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I've been um-ing and ah-ing about fitting a BRS when I build the 701 fuselage, but have definitely decided to do it. It seems to me that despite the initial and ongoing costs, it's cheap insurance when you're talking lives. Obviously you wouldn't use it in case of engine failure with plenty of height and lots of nice flat spots to choose from, but over forest or (as in this case) water it seems like the best option.

 

A few years back a young bloke put a CT-4 down on the Brooker highway near Hobart - if he had a BRS he could have chosen from two nearby open areas or indeed Cornelian Bay in the shallows. He ended up writing off the plane anyway, which didn't impress the owner.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

http://khon2.com/2015/01/26/pilots-explain-what-happened-when-planes-went-down-off-maui-oahu/

[Yenn]

Cirrus have the chute because they cannot demonstrate recovery from a spin. One of the first to use the chute landed in a dam and got spinal injuries, bacause the unercarriage didn't contribute to any reduction of the impact.