Jump to content

Decent emergency landing site?


FastEddieB

Recommended Posts

There's been lots of discussion of when to pull the chute and when to choose a landing site and attempt an off-airport landing.

 

This case is being discussed over on COPA now, and can be used as evidence favoring either side, depending on how its viewed.

 

In addition, most of my flying career was spent in S FL, sans chute, looking down at very similar landscapes and thinking about where to land if the fan stopped.

 

Anyway, in March of 2012 a Cirrus suffered a catastrophic engine loss. There was a CFI onboard, and after surveying the terrain, a road along a canal seemed an easy choice and rather than pull the chute they attempted a landing on the road.

 

This is a Google image of roughly what they saw (all images can be clicked to be seen larger):

 

12498749995_b7bcbd0aa5_z.jpg

 

And the good news is that they set up for a landing there and landed with no injuries. No arguing with success.

 

But...

 

Take a look at what the landing site actually looked like:

 

12499232414_fdd312775e_z.jpg

 

12499230994_7ae78c24e2_z.jpg

 

And what looked from the air like a tiny dark spot was enough to tear off the left main gear:

 

12499229664_1233cdc1f9_z.jpg

 

Anyway, just found this interesting.

 

On the one hand, a successful landing under less-than-optimum conditions without pulling the chute.

 

On the other hand, similar attempts have ended in fatalities, while pulling the chute, to date, never has if pulled within design parameters. This one easily could have had the plane cartwheeled after initial impact.

 

Our planes can typically land at about 40k, compared to the Cirrus at about 60k, so that has to be figured in as well.

 

Anyway, take away from this what you will. I think the main takeaway is that landing spots that look decent from the air may look very different up close. This one sure did!

 

Note: Photos posted with permission of COPA. They are apparently part of the full NTSB accident report, available here:

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/AviationQuery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20120309X22913&ntsbno=ERA12LA219&akey=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eddie, good dose of reality.  What looks like a good landing spot from a few thousand feet looks a lot different during the final approach, even with apparent flat land.  As the picture shows, a depression only a couple of feet deep won't be visible until it's too late and these aren't compatible with most landing gear.  Throw in logs, tree stumps (arggghh!) or fences that cannot be seen.  Makes me more convinced that I'll be looking for a road or big parking lot as a minimum if the unthinkable happens, otherwise, I'm pulling my chute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 The BRS chute certainly adds another escape option. But it's not without it's own risks and it's certainly not a 'free pass'. The airplane would certainly be totaled in any case. It's not like pull the chute and everyone walks away without a scratch.

 

  Over flatter terrain the parachute option would have more merit but over the mountains you can survive the emergency, but float down and impact the mountainside and suffer a second catastrophe which might have been otherwise survivable.

 

 I think one reason for the increased popularity of the chute is the older pilot who may become medically incapacitated and it gives him/her and the passengers a better option than uncontrolled descent into terrain.

 It also gives the inexperienced pilot who might find themselves overwhelmed by flight into IMC etc, heck it gives the experienced pilot that option.

 

Definitely provides a choice between  attempting an emergency landing or believing the chute offers a safer option to a better outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eddie, in the example of the Cirrus in the pictures you posted, the airplane cabin structure looks very good. How did the occupants fare?

 

Do you know if the airplane was totaled or was it repairable?

 

Is the discussion on COPA about whether they should have pulled the chute instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I posted this before. On my last Flight Review I set up a text book solution to my simulated engine failure. If for real, I would have touched down on target - and torn the hell out of the plane including the occupants.

 

What looked like a good spot from altitude, wasn't. By the time I figured this out, an alternate area was not available. At that point the chute would have probably still worked but, maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing about pulling the chute is that it does total the airplane, but that might be a good thing in the case of an engine failure. Insurance usually does not pay for engine problems unless it destroys the airplane. Having to pull the chute with good insurance means you get it paid for!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last time I practiced a descent to emergency landing, I picked an idyllic green field at 2000 feet AGL.  At 800 ft, when I was committed to the landing and would have had no other options if the engine was actually stopped, I realized that the field had deep furrows plowed in it 90° to my landing path.  That would have been a very bumpy touchdown.  Honestly, if that had been the "real thing" I probably would have pulled the chute at that point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple points and reactions...

 

Yes, pulling the chute theoretically entails some risk. But the data from the Cirrus world to date is that risk is very, very small. Far smaller than the risk of an off-airport landing, some of which have been fatal. 

 

No, pulling the chute does not necessarily mean totaling the aircraft. Several planes involved in pulls have been repaired and are back in the air.

 

Yes, incidents like this always revive the debate. Each pilot should think about what he or she would do before the fact - in an emergency the chute is often not considered at all unless trained for it.

 

This plane is flying again, which is what revitalized this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not knowing much at all about the chute option:-

 

What is the typically impact/landing speed and force on a deployed chute? Presumably the ELT would go off?

 

In a scenario where the pilot became incapacitated in cruise and the other occupant pulled the chute how does the engine being at power affect the chute operation? Assuming the other occupation can't or doesn't know how to switch the engine off or close the throttle.

 

Is there an insurance reduction for aircraft fitted with chutes versus those that aren't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

No, pulling the chute does not necessarily mean totaling the aircraft. Several planes involved in pulls have been repaired and are back in the air.

 

I've seen damage to the aircraft brought up several times in reference to pulling the chute.  I'm hoping this is just curiosity and does not factor into the decision in an emergency situation.  Number one (and two, three, etc.) on your list is to get the human cargo on the ground as safe as possible which may involve the chute or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming the other occupation can't or doesn't know how to switch the engine off or close the throttle.

 

If you did the the required (and proper) pre-flight with the passenger this should not happen.  Of course panic can affect outcomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple points and reactions...

 

Yes, pulling the chute theoretically entails some risk. But the data from the Cirrus world to date is that risk is very, very small. Far smaller than the risk of an off-airport landing, some of which have been fatal. 

 

No, pulling the chute does not necessarily mean totaling the aircraft. Several planes involved in pulls have been repaired and are back in the air.

 

Yes, incidents like this always revive the debate. Each pilot should think about what he or she would do before the fact - in an emergency the chute is often not considered at all unless trained for it.

 

This plane is flying again, which is what revitalized this thread.

Totaling the airplane is simply a financial decision, and does not mean the aircraft can not be repaired. It simply means the estimated cost of repairs along with the salvage value of the aircraft is more than the insured value of the aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen damage to the aircraft brought up several times in reference to pulling the chute.  I'm hoping this is just curiosity and does not factor into the decision in an emergency situation.  Number one (and two, three, etc.) on your list is to get the human cargo on the ground as safe as possible which may involve the chute or not.

 

I had that in mind in my last post and just forgot to post it.

 

Lots of pilots have died trying to save airplanes, and even propellers. That should not factor into the equation - unless you compare physical possessions with people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you did the the required (and proper) pre-flight with the passenger this should not happen.  Of course panic can affect outcomes.

 

This is the key.  When I have a passenger, I explain how the chute works, and then my briefing goes as follows:

 

1) Unless I am incapacitated or I tell you otherwise, you should not be touching the chute handle.  Using the chute incorrectly or in the wrong circumstances can kill us rather than save us.

 

2) If I am incapacitated, and the aircraft is stable (flying along and not diving,spinning, or otherwise out of control), then turn key to 'off' and remove the key.  Then close the fuel valve and pull the chute handle.

 

3) If the airplane is out of control, pull the chute handle, then turn off the ignition and close the fuel valve when able.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Over flatter terrain the parachute option would have more merit but over the mountains you can survive the emergency, but float down and impact the mountainside and suffer a second catastrophe which might have been otherwise survivable.

 

 

Yes but over mountains would you seriously consider landing the plane instead of using the chute?  It seems to me over flat land chute pull is better because less can go wrong with it and over mountains chute pull is better because landing plane is way more risky.  Either way I am pulling the chute.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My rule is if I lose power, to try to find a road or football field.  The damage done to the aircraft from flipping on a soft field will be about the same as pulling the chute.  Landing in trees, soft or plowed fields, etc., with 40 kt of forward motion is going to leave some bruises on the pilot and passengers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having pulled the red handle in a BRS demonstrator, I can say with some certainty that it' is going to be more difficult than some may think to get the chute to fire.

I've always wondered about that. Given the awkward location of the handle in the CT, is this really going to be a two-handed operation to get enough force to fire it? Would my wife even be able to do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...