josjonkers Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 I wonder why he did not just land in the huge field where he ended up by parachute? http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=147139 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kentuckynet Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Seems like a lot of CT pilots were never ultralight pilots huh! There was never more than a year went by (in my 25 years) in my quicksilver 2 that i didnt land in a field somewhere. I have way more faith in my flying ability than i have in the BRS product. If i have a wing come off or my tail section brakes off...yep ill be pulling the handle...short of that ill fly it all the way!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Seems like a lot of CT pilots were never ultralight pilots huh! There was never more than a year went by (in my 25 years) in my quicksilver 2 that i didnt land in a field somewhere. I have way more faith in my flying ability than i have in the BRS product. If i have a wing come off or my tail section brakes off...yep ill be pulling the handle...short of that ill fly it all the way!!! This photo shows the missing stabilator on the left side. "The man was seriously injured First report said it might have been an engine failure, but further investigations said that a part of the rear horizontal stabilizer on the plane was missing as seen on pictures." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT4ME Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 'definitely want the real story on this one... engine? missing Stab? Collision with another aircraft? Parachute deployed, or not? What was it? One witness doesn't say anything about parachute... only "small plane rapidly lost altitude" Hey, FD-Germany... some help with this info? Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanik Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Two propellor blades are broken meaning the engine was running when it hit the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Am I seeing something that is not there, or does photograph 11zoomed in look like the the composite structure around the elevator is dripping? Is this the zoom in on a a low resolution photo? How could there be heat there? Unless this was a low deployment, I am surprised that the parachute did not slow the descent more. The struts seem to be collapsed. See the heights on the responders. If this is the best that the chute can do, I am landing. Greg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 The story says the plane hit pretty hard. The bicyclist came by just after the plane crashed and saw the man crawling out of the plane in shock. He was not very articulate but said his back was very painful. One couldn't tell from the story if the chute deployed late, but one gets the feel it might have been a low altitude or late deployment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT4ME Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Something just isn't right... when the chute deploys, doesn't it rip out the covering over the channels that hold the straps? The front attachment points are at either side upper firewall. Shouldn't the channels that run at the left/right edge of the windscreen be ripped open? I see some straps coming out of the hole, but no "channel damage" anywhere. Neither door has been opened. The top window is mostly broken out, and it looks like the pilot-side (left) window is broken out. 'Definite possibility of a too-low deployment, or bad-deployment, or even a after-the-fact-deployment. This was a pretty hard "landing"... maybe a very low stall, as the impact seems to be straight-down. The gear is splayed to the side, and the nose gear/wheel looks like it went straight up. As usual, the "egg" held up well. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Something just isn't right... when the chute deploys, doesn't it rip out the covering over the channels that hold the straps? The front attachment points are at either side upper firewall. Shouldn't the channels that run at the left/right edge of the windscreen be ripped open? I see some straps coming out of the hole, but no "channel damage" anywhere. Neither door has been opened. The top window is mostly broken out, and it looks like the pilot-side (left) window is broken out. 'Definite possibility of a too-low deployment, or bad-deployment, or even a after-the-fact-deployment. This was a pretty hard "landing"... maybe a very low stall, as the impact seems to be straight-down. The gear is splayed to the side, and the nose gear/wheel looks like it went straight up. As usual, the "egg" held up well. Tim That's what I was thinking. The bridles must be *over* the wings, unless they have been cut or the chute was deployed with the airplane inverted. In the pic the bridles are just coming out of the chute panel and hanging to the side...that can't happen in a normal deployment, and given the position of the chute on the ground ahead of the airframe, the bridles should still be laying across the top of the wing somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knolde Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Seems like a lot of CT pilots were never ultralight pilots huh! There was never more than a year went by (in my 25 years) in my quicksilver 2 that i didnt land in a field somewhere. I have way more faith in my flying ability than i have in the BRS product. If i have a wing come off or my tail section brakes off...yep ill be pulling the handle...short of that ill fly it all the way!!! I was never an ultralight or glider pilot for that matter and that is of no consequence, landing off a prepared surface is a life or death decision, no matter what your opinion or your personal flying ability is; that's why it is called an emergency situation! Notwithstanding a lifetime of flying, as I indicated in anther discussion, about power off gliding as I recall-- if a suitable prepared surface is not in my immediate area I will become a test pilot for BRS, Actually after sitting on ejection sseats (never used) for more than 4600 hours, I am biased toward the mechanical solution. Lets get some final words about what happened before second-guessing. See ya, Dr. Ken Nolde, N840KN 500 hours and planning on many more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 One of the most satisfying things about the exchanges on this forum is the observation that while opinions are freely expressed, no one pretends to force their opinion on others. I think I have that right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 The pictures are not perfect, but I wonder if we don't see the risers showing that they came part way out of the channels when looking at the pictures of the plane from the rear, such as the thumbnail above? I had assumed the riser would rip all the covering off - I can't speak to this - but maybe the deployment was such that at least in this case the risers didn't rip all the covering off. I'm only speculating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kentuckynet Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 OK "I was never an ultralight or glider pilot for that matter and that is of no consequence" Not being one just shows why you made this statement. These type of planes really teach you to fly, without this type of training.....Well thats why you "should" pull the handle...its there for people just like yourself. Some of us including myslef land on grass and dirt less than 800'...everyday. My runway is 1100' and you use 600-800 is more than enough when you really "know" how to fly these birds! Good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runtoeat Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 All just conjecture until we might get a good report. To me, it appears that the CT hit the ground extremely hard. Just ankle high grass but no sight of the bottom of fuselage and what gear is left appears to be well in the ground. It looks buried. The missing windshield may be the normal result of the shrouds that run up the "A" pillars from the engine un-zipping the "A" pillar surfaces on deployment and allowing the windshield to pop out. I'm thinking the pilot attempted to deploy just prior to impact or the force of impact may have deployed the chute? IMHO, the BRS company should make it a priority to keep those who have spent substantial money to have the BRS system installed in their aircraft informed of all developments and incidents pertaining to this emergency piece of equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 Too soon to assume anything other than an extremely hard landing. The stabilator could have broken on impact. And as others have said, it looks like the chute did not fully deploy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 OK "I was never an ultralight or glider pilot for that matter and that is of no consequence" Not being one just shows why you made this statement. These type of planes really teach you to fly, without this type of training.....Well thats why you "should" pull the handle...its there for people just like yourself. Some of us including myslef land on grass and dirt less than 800'...everyday. My runway is 1100' and you use 600-800 is more than enough when you really "know" how to fly these birds! Good luck Mack, I wouldn't sell Ken's flying background to short because he hasn't flown ultalights or gliders. He got to fly some stuff that most pilots only dream about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brucegoose Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 Looks like the flaps were in -12 which could have accounted for a stall or hard landing. Also the pic shows a pole with a possible chain crossing his landing path which may have contributed to a stall touchdown ?? Maybe he pulled the BRS at the last moment making the craft "as it were flop stall onto the ground" Who knows untill we hear the full story! Would love to know where the other half of the stabilator is! Thank God he's alive and hope his injuries are not serious. Regards to all Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Zukauckas Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 I've given some thought to the red handle. In general, it's a very good thing even if it only saves you 80-90% of the time. Still, our little plane, with full controls intact (maybe minus an engine) can be landed pretty darn slowly. Any time the landing force is mostly parallel to the grown, as opposed to at a right angle to the ground, I thing you're mostly ahead of the game if you can catch a road, or a field, or a flat tree. When you pull the chute you ought to be thinking will a 4 in 5 chance of survivability be better than what you could do flying low and slow near the ground. Unfortuntely, that question has lots of variables, but can be part of your situational awareness thought process at any time on any given flight. You can be pretty close to a runway (like the Remos GX crash), and have disasterous results if the control surfaces are not working. That was an obvious red handle pull had the red handle been available. Plane cost should never be a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Where does the 80% figure come from? I thought BRS claimed more, but I don't have a firm number. Here is the BRS FAQ, which I think is a little outdated. It talks about a 15-28 fps descent rate and says that for a Cirrus, the landing is about like jumping off a 7 foot ledge. The undercarriage, cabin and seats are engineered to absorb shock as the plane lands. Since stall speed is under 40 kias, how much energy is involved in landing at about 68 fps? In both cases, assume 1320 pounds. I dont' know the answer. I am not opposed to gliding the plane on. That is my first choice, too. But, I wonder if your survival rate of 80% is right and I wonder how a gliding landing into rough terrain equates to comign down under the chute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 In general, it's a very good thing even if it only saves you 80-90% of the time.. Those are certainly good odds. Still, I believe the save rate for Cirrus is currently at 100% for pulls within design parameters. I, too, worried about a plane under 'chute going into a tank farm or a power plant or into a semi's path. So far, none of those fears have been realized. There is a great video by Rick Beach of the Cirrus Owner's group that goes into this. Let me see if I can get a public link to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Zukauckas Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 80-90% is just a rough calculation from the Cirrus BRS results. I am just conservatively guessing it's a little less than we would intuitively think it should be. But I also am guessing (and hoping) our plane is a little more BRS survivable than the Cirrus because it is slower and lighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 80-90% is just a rough calculation from the Cirrus BRS results. I am just conservatively guessing it's a little less than we would intuitively think it should be. But I also am guessing (and hoping) our plane is a little more BRS survivable than the Cirrus because it is slower and lighter. Like I said, I think the number is 100%. Here's a link to the talk. It's over an hour long, but lots of good info there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted August 3, 2012 Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 But I also am guessing (and hoping) our plane is a little more BRS survivable than the Cirrus because it is slower and lighter. There is no basis to assume that. It has to do with how the plane is built. Like they say, "a Cub is so slow it just barely kills you". Drop an egg and a bowling ball and see which is less damaged. The egg will be slower and lighter. The Cirrus has to meet some design parameters and I don't know personally what AMTA says that might be similar for FD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted August 3, 2012 Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 The Cirrus has a huge chute and so do other heavier GA aircraft compared to a CT or light plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted August 3, 2012 Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 The Cirrus has a huge chute and so do other heavier GA aircraft compared to a CT or light plane. True, of course. But more relevant would be the chute size to plane weight ratio. The Cirrus weighs nearly 3x what an LSA does. Without computing chute size ratios, my assumption would be that both are appropriate to the planes in which they're installed. As an aside, didn't Galileo demonstrate that the egg and bowling ball would fall at about the same speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.