Cirrus CAPS save and rescue from Quebec forest (2019) • video

[Garfly]

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Hmmm! - assuming aircraft was as high as allowable (transiting "Tiger "Country), a non BRS equipped aircraft could probably have ditched in the nearby lake/beach without the near miss (for pilot) of a tree coming up through the floor. 

 

technology is a wonderful thing but it always comes at a cost - the dumbing down of car drivers and now pilots with the introduction of "fail safe" safety systems is a well documented phenomena.

[Thruster88]

Bears, he didn't mention the bears. I would have been waiting up that tree🙄

[turboplanner]

He did a beautiful job of splitting the wood.

[Garfly]

45 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Hmmm! - assuming aircraft was as high as allowable (transiting "Tiger "Country), a non BRS equipped aircraft could probably have ditched in the nearby lake/beach without the near miss (for pilot) of a tree coming up through the floor. 

 

technology is a wonderful thing but it always comes at a cost - the dumbing down of car drivers and now pilots with the introduction of "fail safe" safety systems is a well documented phenomena.

 

 

Not surprisingly, the above argument, regarding this accident, has been run elsewhere :

 

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/crash-pilot-produced-video-of-rescue/

 

1. [email protected] August 12, 2019 at 5:44 am

   Great outcome, but am I correct to assume that there was a large flat area and a lake just a few miles from where he pulled the chute? He was losing oil pressure… surely that would not prevent the aircraft gliding to what would have been a much easier area to be extracted from, notwithstanding he may not have had the altitude. I often wonder if pilots are just to quick to descend under canopy, although granted I don’t have the full picture from this short snippet.

    
2. Marc Rodstein August 12, 2019 at 6:59 am

   I had the exact same thought. “He glided away from a lake”. A controlled landing along the shoreline may have been preferable to an uncontrolled landing in the trees where the wreckage may have been invisible to searchers.

    
3. Stu Pid August 12, 2019 at 7:29 am

   He’s a Cirrus pilot with a Cirrus mentality, so, he does Cirrus things like producing this video.

    
   • James McGill August 13, 2019 at 12:35 am

     Apparently, Cirrus pilot + Cirrus mentality = alive to fly another day. Problem with that?

      
4. [email protected] August 12, 2019 at 7:39 am

   Monday morning quarterbacks are a dime a dozen. I don’t care what procedures were followed or what other choices someone that wasn’t there thinks they might have made. This crash was a success in every way. There was no loss of life (or even an injury it seems), no injuries on the ground, and of much less importance, there was little property damage. Kudos to the pilot for his decision making and execution, and to Cirrus for their design that quite possibly saved a life. Nothing is more important.

 

Stan Greenspan August 12, 2019 at 3:31 pm

Dear Monday Morning Quarterbacks from South of the Border. Since very few of you have had the distinct pleasure of flying over northern Quebec – or for that matter, Northern Ontario, let me assure you that there are no sandy beaches abutting the lakes. While that may have looked nice and smooth from the few seconds of images you saw, it was probably rocks. Not stones, rocks. Areas beside lakes in the north are likely to be one of two things, swamps filled with stumps or rocky fields with the occasional tree growing in a crack in the rocks.
I have no doubt that the pilot did the right thing. Isn’t there an old saying, “if you can walk away from it . . ” Well, he did. And kudos to the RCAF S&R folks for getting him out so quickly. Marvellous job!

 

 

 

Also, another interesting forum discussion here:

 

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/cirrus-caps-deployment-plane-crash-and-rescue-from-the-quebec-wilderness.120431/

 

Excerpt:

Rebel Lord, Aug 3, 2019

 

Pfft, the stall into the tree tops is what a real pilot would have done, just like the book says.

No really though I wish I had CAPS. He would 100% be dead or severely injured and probably have died before search and rescue got to him with out it.

Isn’t there a company that does aftermarket parachutes for Cessna and piper?

 

 

What is well documented is that flying (and driving) is getting safer with such, 'dumbing down' measures. 

 

 

[onetrack]

It would've only taken that tree through the cabin to be 20cm further to the right, and the rescuers would've found an impaled pilot.

I'd take the shallow water near the lake shoreline any day, over going straight down over tens of thousands of giant sharp toothpicks!

[Student Pilot]

40 minutes ago, onetrack said:

It would've only taken that tree through the cabin to be 20cm further to the right, and the rescuers would've found an impaled pilot.

I'd take the shallow water near the lake shoreline any day, over going straight down over tens of thousands of giant sharp toothpicks!

There are (usually) no "Beaches" in that sort of country, the shore is a 125' row of pines then steeply sloping into the deep water. As I've said previously I would go for the timber every time, the water is VERY cold and any injury when ditching would increase your chances of not getting out of the smashed wreck. The aircraft must have stopped on top of that tree and slid all the way down, the pilots legs must have been roughed up with the bark!

[Garfly]

45 minutes ago, onetrack said:

It would've only taken that tree through the cabin to be 20cm further to the right, and the rescuers would've found an impaled pilot.

I'd take the shallow water near the lake shoreline any day, over going straight down over tens of thousands of giant sharp toothpicks!

 

Yeah, it's an uncomfortable choice to have to make with no way of predicting which'd be more likely to work.

 

But if it's a choice between ditching a non-retract into a remote beachless lake (esp. at Cirrus speeds) and chancing a tree arrival at parachute descent speed. I reckon I'd be going for option B. 

 

But still, I'm very much alert to the 'toothpick' threat because my (BRS equipped) Skyranger has nothing but laced-up X-Lam fabric to protect its soft underbelly - and, by extension, my soft back-side; not to mention some soft rubber fuel lines.

 

As it happens, just a couple of weeks ago I was discussing with my maintainer-mate the feasibility of installing a lightweight shield under the seat to mitigate that very risk (guessing that trees might be involved in a canopy arrival).  I even got to researching kevlar/carbon fibre sheets as penetration defence. Obviously that wouldn't help if a hefty trunk got involved (as above) but for wood of the slender and sharp type, a light shield might deflect the worst of it.  

[turboplanner]

2 minutes ago, Garfly said:

 

Yeah, it's an uncomfortable choice to have to make with no way of predicting which'd be more likely to work.

 

But if it's a choice between ditching a non-retract into a remote beachless lake (esp. at Cirrus speeds) and chancing a tree arrival at parachute descent speed. I reckon I'd be going for option B. 

 

But still, I'm very much alert to the 'toothpick' threat because my (BRS equipped) Skyranger has nothing but laced-up X-Lam fabric to protect its soft underbelly - and, by extension, my soft back-side; not to mention some soft rubber fuel lines.

 

As it happens, just a couple of weeks ago I was discussing with my maintainer-mate the feasibility of installing a lightweight shield under the seat to mitigate that very risk (guessing that trees might be involved in a canopy arrival).  I even got to researching kevlar/carbon fibre sheets as penetration defence. Obviously that wouldn't help if a hefty trunk got involved (as above) but for wood of the slender and sharp type, a light shield might deflect the worst of it.  

Sounds like a smart plan for very little mass increase.

[Garfly]

These chaps managed a similarly good result without a BRS; just by mushing the Cherokee into the tree tops:

 

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Garfly

[kgwilson]

Mushing into the tree tops is always my plan for an emergency landing over bushland with no alternatives. I have helped rescue several of these back in my Hang Gliding days but then they have a big sail and lots of wires to snag on branches & arrest the fall and oh they are slow and weigh F all as well. The biggest problem with one of them was getting the pilot down to ground level. 

 

I've always planned to look for the thickest patch of trees and then aim for a hard flare dragging the tail through the tops to slow as much as possible before the main gear catches the tops. Hopefully it would then descend nose down through branches allowing the wings to help slow the fall as much as possible before hitting the ground or perhaps even hanging up a bit. Of course the reality may be a lot different but at least that is my plan & I reckon it is better to have a plan than to hope for the best with no plan. I don't have a BRS & have no intention of getting one. My spot tracker will show my flight path & if I survive the SOS activation will provide my exact coordinates to S&R.

[kgwilson]

The bloke in the Cirrus said "She blew oil, was losing oil pressure". No mention of the engine losing power and there were no oil streaks on the fuselage visible at least. Who cares about the engine. Keep it going till it stops. It was all forest so maintain altitude, call mayday, get the PLB ready to activate as soon as the engine does stop while looking for the best place to put down but don't use it if the engine is still making power. The reason may have been a faulty sender or gauge. In that case he'd have arrived at his destination without problems apart for his heart rate.

[Garfly]

In any case, both those stories make you think more seriously about your own minimum survival gear list.  Apparently the guy in the Quebec incident, though good emergency comms gear saved his day, was mad at himself for not having carried food or water on the flight. And the guys in Washington state both had special survival backpacks that were left at home that day.

 

There's an interesting Rec Aviation thread on all that here:

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Garfly

[Garfly]

 

HOW CIRRUS RADICALLY REDUCED FATAL ACCIDENTS • A BIG CHANGE IN PILOT CULTURE

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/july/24/how-cirrus-reduced-accidents

 

"The persistently high accident rate among Cirrus SR20s and SR22s was both troubling and perplexing. How could a modern design with an airframe parachute and the most technologically advanced safety equipment in its class have an accident record that wasn’t as good as the legacy fleet? And why were Cirrus pilots suffering fatal crashes without even attempting to deploy the airframe parachute that was such an unusual attribute of their aircraft? 

 

Some blamed the parachutes, calling them a marketing gimmick that gave Cirrus pilots a false sense of security and encouraged risky behavior. Others faulted Cirrus pilots, saying they lacked the judgment, stick-and-rudder skills, and temperament to safely fly high-performance aircraft in adverse conditions.

 

 ... the company and its tight-knit pilot group, the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association (COPA), set out to create a culture in which pilots who pulled the chute were applauded—not criticized or second-guessed—for their actions. The results have been remarkable."

 

 

[kgwilson]

What has not been said is what is the cause for the deployment and is this engine related issue unique to Cirrus aircraft compared to similar engines in other aircraft. I'd like to know how many deployments have been made when the engine is still making power as appears to be the case with the Quebec incident.

[Garfly]

I understand that the Cirrus research was suggesting that that kind of second guessing of pilots' decisions was part of the problem (Will I be seen as a wimp if I pull the handle?) So they instituted a kind of automatic  'Pull early/Pull often' ethos with the result that fatality rates came down.  

 

Cirrus At 25: A Safer Airplane?

Data trends suggest that it is. The fatal accident rate is below average and CAPS has delivered. But serious landing mishaps still bedevil owners.

 

https://www.avweb.com/ownership/cirrus-at-25-a-safer-airplane/

Edited December 9, 2021 by Garfly

[facthunter]

Lube oil will start a fire quite well on things like red hot exhaust pipes. It only takes a suss filter to spit the case or the rubber seal blow out from the base. Steep slopes with tall timbers are not a good place to be over. The only thing capable of shielding you is the bulk of the motor in front of you but that's not the angle you have when under the influence of the chute. Nev

[johnm]

when we were pruning pine trees with chainsaws (Taupo rd) - the gang always sharpened up the odd tree - about 3 m above ground - 300 dia trees looking like a sharpened pencil (why ? - when you did 100 / day you just had to do something different)

 

.................... be careful - there are made made hazards out there 

[Garfly]

Ouch!  ... better double-up on that Kevlar shield   ; -)

[APenNameAndThatA]

Cirrus fatalities decreased when they got pilots to deploy the parachute sooner. Landing on water, if there is an alternative, is nuts. The survivability is known to be not great.  

[MattP]

I've mentioned this before in another thread, but the training implemented to combat the high accident rate actually covers when to / not to use the chute, as deployment out of parameters isn't great. You can look up the stats but I think there's not been a fatality for an in-parameter deployment and the rate for outside parameters is about 1/2. Challenges they were having was indeed the not pulling because "people will think I'm not a real pilot", pulling too late and also thinking the chute is magic and will just save you from really poor decision making. 

 

The way Cirrus teach chute deployment is a combination of briefing and treating it like you would doing a forced landing field check. IE brief before takeoff for any failure <500/600ft AGL (model dependent) = land ahead, 600 - ~1500ft AGL = CAPS pull right away, > 1500ft AGL options to use the chute or find a suitable area to land. Note that the concept of a minimum altitude for deployment is also taught, IE if you're cruising at 5000ft AGL you give yourself a minimum altitude for deployment of say 2000ft, this gives you time to troubleshoot but also allows you time to deploy. This was IIRC one of the issues they did have in the past was people waiting too long to deploy and either going below the min CAPS deployment altitude or say losing control in IMC exceeding deploy speed in a spiral etc.

 

Personally I wouldn't want to "glide" a Cirrus into the trees, with a best glide between 95-99KIAS @9:1 , its not exactly a glider. Compare that to about 1800FPM and wind speed on the chute, with specific design for the gear (although that won't help into trees) and seats to take the impact, I'm using the chute.

 

I will admit at night / in IMC I'm glad the chute is there just in case you need it, versus trying for a forced landing you can't see.

 

[PommyRick]

The primary benefit of having CAPS is that it gives you one more option to choose from should the worst happen, so of course it would always be preferable to fly an aircraft with one. 

[skippydiesel]

13 minutes ago, PommyRick said:

The primary benefit of having CAPS is that it gives you one more option to choose from should the worst happen, so of course it would always be preferable to fly an aircraft with one. 

Fair comment/opinion, if you are flying an aircraft with similar performance (stall in particular) to the Cirrus and at night (options to "out land" may not be visible).

 

For RAA class aircraft with 45 knot stall, strictly day VFR ,its seem in my opinion to be gross overkill - added expense, loss of space/pay load (yes I know there  may be a small gross TO weight allowance) for very little (not none) safety improvement BUT if it makes you feel good, go for it.

[Garfly]

Yeah, 'chutable moments for any given plane or pilot are pretty rare - and pretty particular as to detail - so any generalised yeah or nay pronouncement on the issue doesn't count for much.  So it does come down to how good it makes you feel - even in the back of your mind - on every flight.  Of course, if such a moment does turn up, the feel good factor is going to be off-the-scale in retrospect.    (Likewise, on the other hand, the "Doh!" factor  ;- )

 

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Garfly