Was this really a 'chute worthy' emergency?

[danny_galaga]

Granted, I don't have enough experience to have had an engine failure (yet) but seems to me this issue the ideal situation to be landing the plane, rather than locking in the destruction of your partner by pulling the chute?

 

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/285055/

[facthunter]

I read all the comments on this one and it gives a bit of insight on the terrain.  The turning bearing could be lack of crush in the case tunnels or releasing the tension on too many studs when removing a cylinder.   Nev

[danny_galaga]

I wish I could re edit posts more than 2 minutes later. I meant PLANE, not PARTNER 😅

[cooperplace]

Well, if he didn't pull the lever and the landing ended badly, say with serious injuries, he'd never forgive himself. I think the only person who can make the decision is him. He certainly didn't pull the lever as his first response: he tried to get to landing fields.

[MattP]

I’ve said it before on here but I’ll say it again, the chute and the training Cirrus provide isn’t about it being pull caps the minute a problem arises. The pilot followed exactly what the type training says, which is pitch for best glide, carry out your memory items, identify a suitable landing area. Where the Cirrus training differs is that you also nominate and call out a minimum caps decision height. Should you not be happy with your options, sure that you can carry out a successful off field landing or any other reason, you pull caps. This is actually the nightmare scenario and he was lucky he had a completely failed deployment as you wouldn’t want that chute streaming behind you, then you’ve lost both your forward speed and ability to glide but don’t get the “gentle” descent rate.

 

it’s also worth noting the 20 and 22 aren’t back country stol machines, so you’re at 97 knots best glide and about 75 over the numbers. That’s a fair bit of energy with small tyres and brakes to dissipate. Much of the argument here always comes down to being able to get it into a field etc, which happens successfully from time to time, just that most pilots use all the systems available to them, and the cirrus happens to have caps to fall back on. As with anything in aviation you don’t get anything for free, the down side of the slippery body and fast cruise is fast landing and glide speeds compared to most 100 series cessna and Cherokee variants.

 

so in most cases it comes down to a question of what’s the best option, chute and lower energy vs higher energy and off field? There was a guy not so long ago that landed his 22 in a field in the us as he decided it was better than caps for him and he walked away fine. 

 

it’s also worth noting most newer sr2xs have airbags, crash impact seats and the side stick is designed to get the foreign bodies like yokes out of the way in a crash. It’s light years ahead of most other singles.

 

 

[Garfly]

That's quite an interesting case.

Yeah, there'd be a lot of (competing) thoughts running through any such pilot's head - whether to pull or not, the big red handle.

But destruction of the plane ain't likely to be one of them. Even sans insurance.  Anyway, there's no guarantee that wheels running on paddock or backroad would do less damage.

 

Cirrus have their reasons for urging the big pull when in doubt.

 

For myself, the question of whether that nicely installed - but untested - BRS in the Skyranger will actually work if called upon, does prey on my mind, a bit.  Which is why one reason for hitting the silk early would be in case it doesn't work; there still might be time to set up for a conventional forced arrival.  (Which is how it turned out in this case above.)

Another, issue would be: do I really want to end up hanging from my straps - after an otherwise okay forced landing - with a powerful explosive right by my head, now on a half-pulled, hair-trigger? For that reason (all else being deemed equal) it may be better to eliminate that danger - to self, pax and first responders - by giving the rocket it's head, aloft, and returning to earth hands free and happy. On the other hand, if the landing did appear pretty straightforward on a nice piece of flat earth then it'd be real tempting to avoid becoming famous on the evening news and the  "Aircraft Incidents and Accidents" forum. In any case, I doubt that a serious consideration would be whether or not my chosen way would be deemed 'chute-worthy' by a jury of my (remote) peers.    ;- )

 

 

Edited April 1, 2023 by Garfly

[Carbon Canary]

I was told of an incident in Germany where a student had an engine failure in a LSA in the circuit and elected to pull the chute. There was a lot of head scratching as to why a forced landing on the adjacent 1000m bitumen strip wasn’t attempted. I guess none of us know how we will react to the startle effect.

 

Regardless, the student walked away from it, and despite the ‘chute’ landing, the aircraft was back flying again within 6 weeks.  

[facthunter]

A lot don't repair that easily after a chute experience but that should not be a part of the decision if the circumstances are deserving of it.. I suggest there will be times when it's not needed, but will be used. You don't know how you will react really till it's happening..  Nev

Edited April 9, 2023 by facthunter