When To Pull The Chute

[gbigs]

......

[FastEddieB]

Those who own aircraft with BRS must still be wondering since nothing in company literature, in general aviation discussion, or in the aircraft AOI, or POH from any of these companies seems to offer emphatic and consistent answers.

 

Cirrus, for one, has many pages devoted to the chute in the POH, including a list of deployment scenarios.

 

[AZAV8OR]

"Of course for those of us flying day VFR and over roads, the first resort is to glide and land. That much is not really arguable."

 

Ooh boy. Here we go on a nice juicy topic. A bunch of you are going to scoff at my M.O. with the BRS, but some of you will resonate with it. (BTW, I just came from the Cirrus world.)

 

1) The throttle is the owner/insurance company transfer lever: idle = owner, forward=insurance company.

2) My overarching mission when flying is to safely walk away (with my pax, if present) from every flight.

3) Above 250AGL and the engine quits, I'm coming down vertically.

4) Engine out and decending: 2000AGL hard deck and pull.

 

Again, some of you may think me nuts, but consider a few points:

 

For those flying a/c without a chute, there is no other option but to pick the best place to make a full stall landing. Hmmm... that road looks good down there. What about the car that comes over a rise? No-see-um power lines? Stop signs? Hmmm... that field will do just fine. You cannot always see the ditch that catches your nose gear and visiously flips the a/c on it's bck. There are a 100 "hmmms" that I can think of. Why risk what you cannot control when you can pull and come to terra firma with a virtual 100% walk-away-from rate?

 

I practice power off accuracy landings. From abeam the numbers downwind, I can put my Cirrus on any spot you point out. I can do it over and over again. Why? 'Cause it's fun and gives me a solid sense of my ability to control my a/c. So why pull when I can make a runway? I once saw a very informative seminar given by a well respected chute puller in the Cirrus world, along with another member versed in human behavior. The chute puller (very experienced pilot) was over water and engine out, headed for the beach, where he intended to pull. He'd set his 2000AGL hard deck, but pulled at 2500, as he described his mental functions as looking through a straw. The other presenter described what happens to our ability to function as the s--t hits the fan. We go from normal to a "red zone" where our higher level reasoning is stressed, ending in the "black zone" where we are operating purely on instinct. Obviously, the black zone is not a good place to be when flying an airplane.

 

Yes, I am aware of the arguments of having no control over direction when under canopy. "What out for that power substation!" I get it, but feel that the risk from that is far outweighed by the damage even a full stall landing in a CT can do. The kinetic energy at <40kts, even as light as we are, is way more damaging that the 1500FPM decent under chute.

 

I am self aware enough to know that I'm an excitable guy. Knowing that, I'm taking the virtual 100% BRS save rate vs. trusting that I'll stay out of the black zone long enough to make a landing. Then I'll let the insurance company buy me a new CT.

 

Betcha your family members wouldn't argue this logic!

 

[FastEddieB]

I will bow out of this discussion now, since the topic has been discussed ad nauseum on this site and elsewhere. The "search" function would serve one well in that regard.

 

In closing, I will again link to this video by Rick Beach which analyzes Cirrus CAPS events in detail. Well worth a watch if you fly a Cirrus or any plane with BRS.

 

[Jim Meade]

It is interesting that discussions on topics such as this often involve people telling other people what their "give up" point is and justifying it.  One way to move your "give up" point early into the game is to never anticipate trouble, never mentally prepare for it and never practice responses and then compound it by avoiding situational awareness.  

Of course, one example of this is the myriad discussions on the "impossible turn" involving power loss on take-off.  

I agree with Fast Eddy that the subject gets boring since everyone is on transmit and no one is on receive. 

A pilot friend of mine and I actually talk about and fly some situations and it's obvious that our predilection is informed by our experience.  I'd say that may move the "give up" point farther into the experience, which is comforting to me but probably not an issue to others.  Instinct gives way to reason, panic is hopefully deferred due to experience.

Note I have not said a thing about when or if I would pull my BRS.  I have given my passengers guidance on when and how I think THEY should pull the chute.  

[FlyingMonkey]

No course of action in an emergency is without risk. You are the PIC, make your decisions based on what makes sense to you. You are bound to find many people with opposing opinions no matter what you choose and how well thought out it is.

[Alaskatravels]

Not withstanding the wait time for a CT these days, or the cost, during a recent long cross country over rugged landscape pulling the BRS was a given most of the time.. Then all my focus was on surface winds, altimeter, and dry high smooth hard ground. After you decide WHEN your limit is to pull BRS it is constant calculation as you look at where you want all your survival gear be, in one place. A crawl away landing is of little value if you are hurt or cannot find your rifle.

 

Farmer

[Ed Cesnalis]

I have an aversion to pulling the chute.  Twice in the 80's I should have deployed my '2nd Chantz' recovery system but I landed instead.  The first event I had already lost my left main gear and the 2nd time I lost my engine with no field to land in.  Both times I was lucky and the landings worked out as good as could be hoped for.

 

As I was formulating a plan to land on the one remaining main gear it never even occurred to me to pull the chute.

[Craig]

It seems for some the safer option is to remove the chute altogether since they have no intention of using it.  In that scenario it is excess mass and energy to be dissipated?  And who wouldn't mind the extra useful load and performance w/o the chutes weight (probably 30-40 pounds?).  

[DocRon]

Personally, I flew for 35 years without a chute.  Now that I have one I wouldn't be without it.

[Ed Cesnalis]

It seems for some the safer option is to remove the chute altogether since they have no intention of using it.  In that scenario it is excess mass and energy to be dissipated?  And who wouldn't mind the extra useful load and performance w/o the chutes weight (probably 30-40 pounds?).  

 

It didn't occur to me to pull because I could still fly the plane.  Jammed controls, a mid-air or any situation where I loose control of the plane and I bet the chute will then occur to me.

[FlyingMonkey]

I was flying with the wife today over Lake Lanier, Atlanta's water supply.  I started talking to my wife about how limited the lading options are there (basically water or trees, very little open space).  She said "what about that field over there?"  It was a long haul and tilled (in the wrong direction for landing), but I said "let's find out, and I pulled the power and setup an emergency landing there.  We would have made it, just barely, but by the time we got there we saw it was shorter than it looked.  I could have gotten in with full flaps and a big low speed slip, but the chute would have been much safer.

 

I have transitioned lately to thinking of the chute as my first engine out option, and only landing off-airport if there is a REALLY good place to go.

[Runtoeat]

As Fast Eddie says, this subject has been thrashed to death here so I'll add my short version with the hope that this information may assist others to develop a plan of action here on the ground and not while the sh*ts hitting the fan in the air.  I've seen two CT's after crashing due to engine problems.  The pilots felt they had "good" fields to land in so these planes were deadsticked in.  Although pilots and passengers walked away, the planes were damaged beyond repair.  Wings were nearly or completely torn off.  Vertical stabilizer snapped off on one.  Landing gears were torn off.  Engines were torn off.  Windshields popped out.  In a third local accident involving a Tecnam Bravo, the pilot had an engine fail on takeoff so he decided to attempt a landing in what appeared to be a friendly soybean field next to the runway.  The landing gear was torn off this plane and forced thru the floor.  It punctured the pilot's lungs and he died from injuries.  There are other incidents I have not seen afterwards but the reports indicate severe damage resulted from forced landings.  Except for Charlie Tango and a few other crashes, most crashes I'm familiar with or have read about have resulted in significant damage to the aircraft and, worse, physical injury to the occupants.  On the other hand, I have been told by a CT repair facility that the damage which results from the deployment of the BRS in a CT will quite probably result in a significant but economically feasible repair, depending on how much secondary damage results from the 'chute assisted crash. Jim's point is appropriate. I'm not trying to tell others what to do but attempting to provide information that might help others to formulate a plan..

[WmInce]

As Fast Eddie says, this subject has been thrashed to death here so I'll add my short version with the hope that this information may assist others to develop a plan of action here on the ground and not while the sh*ts hitting the fan in the air.  I've seen two CT's after crashing due to engine problems.  The pilots felt they had "good" fields to land in so these planes were deadsticked in.  Although pilots and passengers walked away, the planes were damaged beyond repair.  Wings were nearly or completely torn off.  Vertical stabilizer snapped off on one.  Landing gears were torn off.  Engines were torn off.  Windshields popped out.  In a third local accident involving a Tecnam Bravo, the pilot had an engine fail on takeoff so he decided to attempt a landing in what appeared to be a friendly soybean field next to the runway.  The landing gear was torn off this plane and forced thru the floor.  It punctured the pilot's lungs and he died from injuries.  There are other incidents I have not seen afterwards but the reports indicate severe damage resulted from forced landings.  Except for Charlie Tango and a few other crashes, most crashes I'm familiar with or have read about have resulted in significant damage to the aircraft and, worse, physical injury to the occupants.  On the other hand, I have been told by a CT repair facility that the damage which results from the deployment of the BRS in a CT will quite probably result in a significant but economically feasible repair, depending on how much secondary damage results from the 'chute assisted crash. Jim's point is appropriate. I'm not trying to tell others what to do but attempting to provide information that might help others to formulate a plan..

Good post Dick and your points are well taken.

[Jim Meade]

As Fast Eddie says, this subject has been thrashed to death here so I'll add my short version with the hope that this information may assist others to develop a plan of action here on the ground and not while the sh*ts hitting the fan in the air.  I've seen two CT's after crashing due to engine problems.  The pilots felt they had "good" fields to land in so these planes were deadsticked in.  Although pilots and passengers walked away, the planes were damaged beyond repair.  Wings were nearly or completely torn off.  Vertical stabilizer snapped off on one.  Landing gears were torn off.  Engines were torn off.  Windshields popped out.  In a third local accident involving a Tecnam Bravo, the pilot had an engine fail on takeoff so he decided to attempt a landing in what appeared to be a friendly soybean field next to the runway.  The landing gear was torn off this plane and forced thru the floor.  It punctured the pilot's lungs and he died from injuries.  There are other incidents I have not seen afterwards but the reports indicate severe damage resulted from forced landings.  Except for Charlie Tango and a few other crashes, most crashes I'm familiar with or have read about have resulted in significant damage to the aircraft and, worse, physical injury to the occupants.  On the other hand, I have been told by a CT repair facility that the damage which results from the deployment of the BRS in a CT will quite probably result in a significant but economically feasible repair, depending on how much secondary damage results from the 'chute assisted crash. Jim's point is appropriate. I'm not trying to tell others what to do but attempting to provide information that might help others to formulate a plan..

Dick, good points but it floats to the top the issue of economics being a major factor in the decision to chute or not.  Some may argue that only the safety of people (inside or outside the airplane) should be a consideration.   That feasibility of repair is not a valid consideration. If the point is that people will listen to money even when they shouldn't so give them a money reason to take a certain course of action, then maybe that is a point.

 2-3 examples of off-airport landings can be interesting and illustrative but don't necessarily exhaust the scenarios we want to consider.

 

Do we have the landing forces in a parachute descent and a range of landing forces in an off-airport landing?  Maybe that would give us a range of considerations.

 

Don't land in other than a newly planted soybean field.  I grow them.  They catch airplane gear.    I watched them nearly flip a 450 hp Stearman and was mightily impressed.

[FredG]

Debate on topics like this are often the result of limited empirical evidence.  Anecdote influences us, but has limited value for making rules or policy.  For example, in 2011, a CT in Florida lost all engine power and landed off-airport with no injury to pilot and no damage to the airplane.  A repair was made and the plane departed without further incident.  Should we infer a general point about use of the BRS after engine failure?  Maybe or maybe not.

 

The web site,  http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=FDCT  lists some 45 "occurrences" worldwide involving FDCT aircraft, and lists 6 fatalities.  Some limited detail are provided.  In my quick reading, these events require some study prior to making sweeping statements about use of BRS.  (Disclaimer - I have no idea if the information is accurate or complete.  It does appear to be legitimate, however.)  It seems that many (perhaps most) CT events involve runway LOC, making the BRS a non-issue.     

 

FWIW, I am very happy my plane has BRS and I take the pin out every time I fly.  OTOH, I practice engine-out (power to idle) landings with considerable frequency and I also attempt to make most of my landings (engine-out practice or not) at the slower end of the speed distribution, usually with 30-40 degrees of flaps (conditions permitting).

 

Fred

[AZAV8OR]

As a newbie to the FD world and the CT site (but still an active COPA member), I was curious to see what kind of response I'd get to my post. Aside from the cryptic "give up point" comment (I don't view a well thought out SOP that results in a pull to be "giving up"), it was very nice to see that I've joined a community that's concerned about safety and wants to engage in thoughtful discussion about how to improve it. That's what's kept me an active COPA member for 5 years.

 

I'm looking  forward to getting to know all of you, if only through the guise of this site.

 

 

(BTW, we need more emoticons; my trademark smiley has sunglasses!)

[Ed Cesnalis]

One argument supporting pulling vs emergency landings that we have heard lately is that your CT might flip over if landed in a near perfect grass field.  After reading http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=167798 I would agree that the chances of nosing over are high but the chances of walking away without major injuries are high as well.

 

Other observations:

• The guy that had to pull due to having lost half of his stabilator had major injuries
• Many incidents are possibly contributed to by landing fast
• Loss of engine power is a big contributer
• Gusty winds were a repeated factor

Light sport has limited energy and emergency landing attempts are more reasonable, more often then in a much heavier Cirrus.

[Anticept]

I've landed in grass fields with no issue. You need to have 6.00-6 tires though. The little 4.00-6 can dig in.

 

If you want to do some bush flying, you'll need big ass balloon tires

[Tom Baker]

I've landed in grass fields with no issue. You need to have 6.00-6 tires though. The little 4.00-6 can dig in.

 

If you want to do some bush flying, you'll need big ass balloon tires

I've landed on grass many times with the 4.00x6 tires CTLS and CTSW with the 4.00x4 nose tire, and it was a non issue.

[Anticept]

I've landed on grass many times with the 4.00x6 tires CTLS and CTSW with the 4.00x4 nose tire, and it was a non issue.

 

Awesome

[Ed Cesnalis]

For the purpose of this thread I think there is a big difference between landing on a grass field or runway used for landings and take-offs and landing on a grass field in an emergency.

 

Assume a grass runway is usable for the purpose it was intended, meaning there are no sneaky holes or ditches for your gear to fall into.  Judging by the reported 45 FDCT incidents it is in fact likely that the emergency landing will result in a nose over.

[Anticept]

Yes but you said near perfect grass field

 

I don't land anywhere that isn't a runway without scouting it first on the ground.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Yes but you said near perfect grass field

 

I don't land anywhere that isn't a runway without scouting it first on the ground.

 

Actually I said: "One argument supporting pulling vs emergency landings that we have heard lately is that your CT might flip over if landed in a near perfect grass field."

 

If the context is an emergency landing then the assumption is you have no opportunity to scout on the ground first, at least in most cases.

 

This thread is about 'when to pull the chute' not landing on grass runways.

[Anticept]

Actually I said: "One argument supporting pulling vs emergency landings that we have heard lately is that your CT might flip over if landed in a near perfect grass field."

 

If the context is an emergency landing then the assumption is you have no opportunity to scout on the ground first, at least in most cases.

 

That you did, I seem to have forgotten the context for our discussion! oops!