Decent emergency landing site?

[Rich]

The GRS that came with my Sting S4 has a pull force of 9kg (20 pounds).

 

My concern was not the pull force for my wife or passenger but the attach point of the handle.

It's positioned directly on the bottom lip of the panel forward of the stick. In my opinion, the plastic at this point seemed to be weak, so I beefed it up with two aluminum doublers inside the lip and fastened through the bottom and top of the lip which spread the pull force over a wider area.

 

I don't know the pull force on the CT's but I would insure that the attach point was able to withstand the force if necessary.

[GravityKnight]

 

Few would buy a house unseen at least not if you like your money.  So why take a chance on a pasture or small country road without getting down to 500 feet and pulling the chute at low speed?

 

Oh yea, there is that macho factor to contend with...

 

Pulling the chute guarantees a rough landing, with little control over the situation. Most likely the plane is totaled or at least damaged badly. Passengers are not going to have a fun time with it either, though, they should all walk away, or maybe limp away.

 

Landing the plane in a field/road etc. leaves the chance of a relatively smooth landing with no damage to the occupants or plane. Of course there is no guarantee of this, and you could get hurt badly....

 

How hard I am going to try and save the airplane only goes so far... the people on board come first. But pulling the chute doesn't automatically guarantee less personal injury though...

 

 

Really it depends on where you are going to put it down (the situation at hand). If I'm in a thick tall forest, I think I'd rather come relatively straight down with the chute. If I'm over open fields/roads, I think I'd take my chances setting it down that way (assuming I've kept my composure). Having both options is a good thing though...

[Anticept]

The chute guarantees that you will live through the crash, but it will still cause some injury. The biggest thing would be some spinal inflammation.

 

Landing could go either way.

 

Right now it's snowy where i live. I do not know how well 600-6 tires will handle in snow, and I don't want to find out the hard way if they don't.

[FastEddieB]

The chute guarantees that you will live through the crash, but it will still cause some injury.

I do not think that's true.

 

In the vast majority of chute pulls the occupants are uninjured.

 

I would agree with, "...but it MAY still cause some injury." But even there the rarity of injury should be emphasized.

[Anticept]

I do not think that's true.

In the vast majority of chute pulls the occupants are uninjured.

I would agree with, "...but it MAY still cause some injury." But even there the rarity of injury should be emphasized.

Mind you, even bruising is considered injury. That's why i clarified in stating about the worst that will happen is a little spinal inflammation. "No real injury" or "no major injury" is a phrase used a lot because it excludes minor injury like bruising or little cuts.

[FastEddieB]

I also wouldn't agree that the chute guarantees that you will live.  You never know where you might land (100 foot tree, edge of cliff, power lines, hornets nest, Deliverance).

Agreed.

 

My "favorite" is having the chute drag you into the path of a semi and getting squashed like a bug.

 

Or coming down into a power station and getting fried.

 

I made both of those points back in 2003, attempting to play devil's advocate on the Cirrus site.

 

But then, more and more successful pulls kept happening, and the dire predictions not so much.

 

So I was converted.

 

A CT lands with much less energy than a Cirrus. Stipulated, and that needs to be figured in. But with the data so far on the Cirrus, chute pulls are usually benign and without injury, and many Cirrus pilots have died attempting to land. The stats clearly favor a chute pull.

 

I know I'm repeating myself, but I think this is important.