BRS Parachute News

[Tom Baker]

 

Tom,

You asked me a pointed question too (and you are an FAA FAAST team member). I don't mean to pick a fight, but do you, or anyone else (except Encore560) have an

opinion about risk taking with BRS, in light of this thread's posting so far?

 

Doug Hereford

 

Doug, I run an FBO, so I come in contact with all types. I know of NO one who takes the position that they can push the limits because they have a chute. In fact most tend to lean more to the conservative side when flying. I know having a chute has never crossed my mind when making a flying decision.

 

I do have a clip wing Taylorcraft project that I will likely put a chute in when I finish it up. I like the idea of having a chute on a airplane doing acro, especially something that is hard to get out of while wearing a backpack chute.

[FlyingMonkey]

I used to fly in front of a 2-stroke 50hp Rotax.  I had a 2nd Chantz ballistic chute.  I would fly low where it wasn't forested but would climb till I had a glide to a landing zone before crossing over anything where landing would be dangerous.  This proves that If I don't trust my engine I won't depend on my chute and do it anyway.  I have even had 2 emergency landings where I didn't pull, one of them I had lost a main landing gear, the other I couldn't restart after gliding and landed in steep terrain.  I am truly reluctant to pull.

 

 

If I'm flying down low, I like to keep the speed high.  It reduces the chances of an unrecoverable low altitude stall, and in an engine failure it gives me the chance to climb out a little to increase the number of landing options.  The downside is that you have less time to react to obstructions, wires, etc.  But I don't like to fly down low unless I'm *very* familiar with the local area and/or I'm over a clear space like a lake.

 

I don't fly low enough for any of this to be a concern very often, 1000ft AGL is kind of my floor for most flying. 

[FlyingMonkey]

Mr. Morden,

Okey dokey.

You understand why I asked I hope, given the nature of the repeated questions I have received on my position?

 

 

Sure.  I don't think we really disagree that much.  Neither of us thinks a BRS should be a "crutch" to change behavior.  I think we only disagree on what should happen if the handle is pulled.  If everybody walks away unharmed, which is usually the case, I say "good, glad it worked out" and you seem to be saying "start looking at what the pilot did wrong so we can punish him/her".

[IrishAl]

All in all I'm more alligned with Doug H then 'pull early, pull often'.  

 

PS  If anything makes me bolder its my avionics and syn vis.  I did get stuck for over 30 minutes while flying a mountainous route 1,000' below the peakls in smoke that went to zero visibility.  I'm way more comfortable in inadvertent IMC with the glass panel than I used to be with steam gauges.

Agree on both points.

 

It seems that the 'pull early, pull often' mantra was, at least partly, a response to Cirrus owners that were wrecking the safety record of the airplane.

I see it as the same type of advice as 'Don't try the impossible turn below 1000 feet' - it boils everything down to the lowest common denominator.  (In the UK we call it 'dumbing down'.)

 

I'd be pretty certain that synthetic vision has prevented quite a few accidents to date, and a very high percentage of those would have been fatals, too.

On the other hand, I'd say synthetic vision is far more likely to induce pilots to make poor decisions that a parachute ever would.

 

 

.

[Ed Cesnalis]

 I'd say synthetic vision is far more likely to induce pilots to make poor decisions that a parachute ever would..

 

              ^this

[Doug Hereford]

I think a lot can be a matter of trading in a set of widely know risks for another set of much less obvious ones.

 

When I look at most truly elective things in aviation pragmatically, it always seems to take me back to the middle.

 

Doug Hereford

[Ian]

And rather amazingly it turns out that even Cirrus pilots can sometimes land their aircraft without using the parachute

 

[andyb]

And rather amazingly it turns out that even Cirrus pilots can sometimes land their aircraft without using the parachute

 

 

Not responding to this particular post, but to the thread in general.

 

I purchased my first Cirrus in 2001, and it was the 145th produced. 15 years later they're at about 7,000 and during that time there's been a lot of evolution regarding the parachute. I believe that the protracted learning curve has caused loss of life, and to the degree that people flying other airframes with the parachute can learn from the Cirrus experience, all the better.

 

By far the biggest issue, in my observation, HAS NOT been taking on missions with the parachute that wouldn't and shouldn't otherwise be flown...it's the opposite, that being people not using it when they should.

 

While I'm sure that there are some Cirrus pilots that have used the parachute as a basis to go when they shouldn't have, I don't believe it to be a prevalent issue. Now there are some Cirrus pilots, myself included, that fly certain missions in a parachute equipped plane that they wouldn't otherwise fly. But to me, the discriminator is whether those flights are il-advised in the first place, or whether only flying them with the parachute adds conservatism. For example, I never used the parachute to fly in icing, or in ceilings below minimums. However, I did decide when I owned a Piper Warrior, that I wouldn't fly night, low IFR, or over mountains in a plane that didn't have either a turbine, a second piston engine, or a parachute. I believe only flying in these conditions with a parachute equipped plane was wise, conservative, and prudent. Honestly, I've gotten to the point that I avoid any flights in a single-engine piston plane without a parachute, or said differently, I use the parachute to justify my flying on a mission that I wouldn't fly without the parachute.

 

The real, hard-learned conclusion among the Cirrus community was that the life-taking danger was people not using the parachute when they could have, and paying the ultimate price for it. Coming to this life-saving conclusion took a good deal of pragmatism. It became necessary to understand that there are times in which the parachute can save lives when the pilot did something really stupid. This, in turn, required the Cirrus community to understand that eviscerating someone who made a mistake that lead to a pull might cause the next person not to pull and to die as a result. It was a huge culture change, going from "what a dumb - - -, how did he get himself into that situation" to "he did the right thing and lived to be with his family tonight." Part of that pragmatism was understanding that pilots have big egos, and to some pulling the parachute is admitting error, and that ego-driven decision was causing loss of life.

 

The "pull early pull often" mantra was one that I never liked, as it seemed to communicate a cavalier attitude about it all. It was replaced with "consider CAPS," which I feel is far better. It encourages people to weigh it as an option.

 

The Cirrus community has gone to great lengths to teach better decision-making, so the parachute isn't needed in the first place. Lots done there. At the same time, I don't observe it has done much good, and I believe that stupid pilots will be stupid pilots, no matter how much we admonish them or insult them. And, almost all good pilots I know have had a stupid incident in their lives.

 

What the Cirrus community has done, with great success, is to encourage people to use the parachute when appropriate, and not berate someone when they get into a situation that mandates using the parachute. Not that the pilot doesn't deserve being berated in some instances, but because doing so may cause the next pilot in a similar situation to not use the parachute.

 

As CT fliers, we have the opportunity to learn from another airframe user group's evolution, as I believe it's a great case study for us. We can't admonish people into not being stupid. Sorry. But we can avoid making comments and having a culture that discourages people (even stupid people) from taking an action that can save their life.

 

Andy

[FlyingMonkey]

Great post, thanks Andy.

[Doug Hereford]

Andyb,

I agree. That was a great post. I hope you don't think that my position is intended to cause pilots to be hesitant to do anything reasonably necessary to complete the mission. I think I may have over-shot when I said that the FAA could enact a rule to revoke one's certificate............................BRS chute pull.  What I meant to say is that I think that the FAA should continue to aggressively investigate incidents and accidents as always, and if it comes to light that a pilot was careless and reckless, appropriate certificate action should follow.

Looking at the daily NTSB accident/incident reports. Can we imagine a world where all single engine aircraft have BRS?

We cannot perpetuate a culture that discourages life saving action. I agree 100%.

 

That is why I would ask Cirrus this:

If we can agree that it is always safer to recover an out-of-control aircraft in flight, as apposed to pulling a chute, and if as is said in every communication from the Cirrus company, except the approved, official and legally binding ones (operating instructions, type design, and maintenance instructions) that it can be done in your aircraft..................Why do you not make it official, which would undoubtedly improve all aviation's safety culture. 

 

Doug Hereford

[bitten192]

I used to be against them until I installed one, now I am for them.

[andyb]

Andyb,

I agree. That was a great post. I hope you don't think that my position is intended to cause pilots to be hesitant to do anything reasonably necessary to complete the mission. I think I may have over-shot when I said that the FAA could enact a rule to revoke one's certificate............................BRS chute pull.  What I meant to say is that I think that the FAA should continue to aggressively investigate incidents and accidents as always, and if it comes to light that a pilot was careless and reckless, appropriate certificate action should follow.

Looking at the daily NTSB accident/incident reports. Can we imagine a world where all single engine aircraft have BRS?

We cannot perpetuate a culture that discourages life saving action. I agree 100%.

 

That is why I would ask Cirrus this:

If we can agree that it is always safer to recover an out-of-control aircraft in flight, as apposed to pulling a chute, and if as is said in every communication from the Cirrus company, except the approved, official and legally binding ones (operating instructions, type design, and maintenance instructions) that it can be done in your aircraft..................Why do you not make it official, which would undoubtedly improve all aviation's safety culture. 

 

Doug Hereford

Doug,

 

I assume that you are referring to the fact that in the Cirrus POH the way to deal with a spin is to pull the parachute. I expect that you realize that for other loss of control situations, the parachute isn't mandated.

 

My perspective was always that if I got into a spin, I would first try (quickly) to arrest the spin with control inputs, and if unsuccessful, then would pull the chute.  Bear in mind, with over 50 data points, there's never been a fatality (airplane occupants or people on the ground) associated with pulling the parachute if pulled within the design inputs.

 

The background, as I understand it, is that Cirrus never did spin testing on the plane for US certification because given that they already were incorporating the parachute, using an "equivalent level of safety" (if I remember the term correctly) was far cheaper and faster than doing the spin testing.  It was, however, tested for European certification (something like 45 different scenarios) and it passed.  Interestingly, people who read the reports and some who apparently put the plane into spins intentionally have reported that it requires immediate and correct control inputs; apparently it's not very forgiving.  As I understand it, the unique design of the cuffed wing, which makes it far less prone to getting it into a spin in the first place, makes it a bit more of a challenge once a spin develops.  All about tradeoffs.

 

I found the plane to be very docile in stalls, and with 2100 hours in the Cirrus and plenty of stall practice, I never had any issues whatsoever in that regard.

 

While I think it could be debated whether it would be safer if the Cirrus POH was changed, as I believe you're suggesting, I don't see it happening for the reasons I cited.  Given that the POH is the holy grail, I don't think that they can deviate from that in their other communications.  The results of the European testing was widely disseminated, however.

 

Andy

[Doug Hereford]

Andyb,

I agree that Cirrus cannot deviate from what their certification allows for.....but since they tout safety as their motive for the chute, why would they then limit an operator to only a chute pull to recover from a spin, which is not as safe as an in-flight recovery................. if they are trying to promote a safety

culture? Especially when every other (unofficial) position from them says that the aircraft will recover without the chute?

 

As far as FAA enforcement for chute pulls, I think maybe a starting point could be reference to 91.15. Obviously this reg. prohibits dropping of an object (with

certain exceptions). I would apply the same logic for chute pulls, except that if it proves that the act created a hazard to persons or property on the ground, the pilot's certificate is revoked. Is that really not fair?

 

In looking at the daily reports from the NTSB, if every GA single involved in an incident where an off airport landing was made, pulled a chute instead of flying the aircraft to the ground, we would see a lot more injuries to innocent people.

 

Doug Hereford

[Doug Hereford]

Has anyone ever been out of control in their car afraid for their life, because the brakes failed............and wished that there was a way that they could jump out, saving their life? Maybe they grab their family and jump out with them saving all of their lives. Subsequently, the unoccupied car hits another person's family and kills

them. Should this situation warrant any action on the driver of the

car?

 

Doug Hereford

[andyb]

Andyb,

I agree that Cirrus cannot deviate from what their certification allows for.....but since they tout safety as their motive for the chute, why would they then limit an operator to only a chute pull to recover from a spin, which is not as safe as an in-flight recovery................. if they are trying to promote a safety

culture? Especially when every other (unofficial) position from them says that the aircraft will recover without the chute?

 

As far as FAA enforcement for chute pulls, I think maybe a starting point could be reference to 91.15. Obviously this reg. prohibits dropping of an object (with

certain exceptions). I would apply the same logic for chute pulls, except that if it proves that the act created a hazard to persons or property on the ground, the pilot's certificate is revoked. Is that really not fair?

 

In looking at the daily reports from the NTSB, if every GA single involved in an incident where an off airport landing was made, pulled a chute instead of flying the aircraft to the ground, we would see a lot more injuries to innocent people.

 

Doug Hereford

Doug,

 

As I said, I don't think Cirrus has the latitude to deviate from the POH in any of their communications.

 

Separately, I don't think the facts support your concern about people on the ground being in danger of being hit by a plane under canopy.  First, in I believe 54 Cirrus deployments, no one on the ground has been killed or injured seriously.  I believe there was only one incident, a fender-bender with a pickup truck.  First, no matter what the circumstances, statistically the chances of a plane hitting someone on the ground are remote.  Second, with the plane under canopy coming down near-vertically, there's far less of a path of destruction than with a plane traveling laterally.  Third, the plane under the parachute is traveling at a much lower speed than one that's gliding, and the energy is exponentially lower.  Finally, the parachute apparently makes a lot of noise when it's deployed, and my understanding is that has allowed people on the ground to watch out. 

 

Whatever the reason, I don't believe there's credible information to suggest that using the parachute represents any more of a risk to people on the ground than not having the parachute.  As I said in my earlier post, the bigger danger is making arguments NOT to pull the parachute, rather than its being used.

 

If there were credible information or evidence that the parachute represents any reasonable risk to people on the ground, then I'd be the first one to recommend restraint in it's use.  There's good data on this, and it just doesn't support that concern.

 

Andy

 

Andy

[Doug Hereford]

Andyb,

You are right. Cirrus cannot deviate from their certification. Why not certify the aircraft to actually do what they (unofficially) say it will do. I refuse to argue that it is just as safe to pull a chute as recover in flight. If Cirrus is really putting safety first, re-certify the aircraft and give the operator options. I submit that they don't do this because they CANNOT.

 

Now you are in a car traveling faster than you normally would, because you know that if the brakes fail, you have a system that will egress you and you family safely from the vehicle, should the brakes become ineffective......................Now they have become ineffective, and you deploy that system to save yourself and your family. The your car hits another person's family and kills them. Should you be held accountable in any way?

 

Doug Hereford

[andyb]

Andyb,You are right. Cirrus cannot deviate from their certification. Why not certify the aircraft to actually do what they (unofficially) say it will do. I refuse to argue that it is just as safe to pull a chute as recover in flight. If Cirrus is really putting safety first, re-certify the aircraft and give the operator options. I submit that they don't do this because they CANNOT.Now you are in a car traveling faster than you normally would, because you know that if the brakes fail, you have a system that will egress you and you family safely from the vehicle, should the brakes become ineffective......................Now they have become ineffective, and you deploy that system to save yourself and your family. The your car hits another person's family and kills them. Should you be held accountable in any way?Doug Hereford

Doug,

 

I've answered your questions as best I can.

 

Andy

[Doug Hereford]

My point with the brakes relates to why I think a stiff penalty should accompany certain chute deployments.

 

I have pointed questions with regard to Cirrus' adoption of the BRS. I am a consumer, so therefore I am entitled to have them. As yet I have gotten no good answer.

 

If every GA aircraft will ultimately have a chute as Irish Al eluded to, (based on the daily NTSB report for accidents), there is going to be a lot more aircraft floating down to the ground in a culture where we pull early and often to save our a$$es.

 

Doug Hereford

[S3flyer]

Doug -- very few GA pilots have done, much less practice, spin recovery.  What PP (and I assume SP) are taught is strictly from the book.  The FAA made a concerted effort to change training from spin recovery to spin avoidance.  You assume it is safer for an untrained pilot to recovery from a spin vs. pulling a chute and I highly doubt this is true for the majority of (untrained) pilots.  Perhaps Cirrus was also making a decision for their product for what is the safest route for the average pilot.

 

Let's play devils advocate and assume a pilot's ego exceeds their intelligence and uses their superior flying skills to recover from a spin.  Unfortunately, they fail and the plane spirals out of control, augers into an apartment complex, burst into flames and destroys several apartments and occupants.  Highly possible in a metro area.  The same could not be said if the plane lowered to earth under a canopy. 

[Doug Hereford]

Wrong. I do not assume (and never said) that it is safer for an untrained pilot to do anything.

It is safer to RECOVER from a spin in flight than to pull a chute.................period. It does not matter if the pilot is trained or untrained. If they recover in flight it is safer even if they do it by accident. The regulations know this because they require design approval holders to demonstrate spin recovery.....................not spin "attempt to recover from". I don't dispute that attempting to recover and failing is worse than pulling the chute. I want the option..............Cirrus says their plane will do it, out of the unofficial side of their mouth, but not where it counts..............................WHY?

 

Let's assume that a pilot's choice has noting to do with ego, but rather what the operating instructions tell me to do.......................In a Cirrus, his only option is to pull..................And yet all their marketing gurus say it will recover. I am not satisfied.

 

In your scenario, do you really want to be sitting in the apartment when the plane drops in?

 

Doug Hereford

[Doug Hereford]

Here is what I purpose. We put our collective heads together and perform spin recovery testing in an experimental Cirrus aircraft. We do it the same way that Cirrus would have to, over unpopulated flat terrain (we used to go to Roswell NM for field performance and spin recovery testing) with the aircraft fully instrumented to document our results.

If it turns out that the aircraft has no bad habits, and recovers normally, we apply for an STC to amend the operating procedures to include normal spin recovery, and to allow the parachute to be optional equipment............the aircraft in full compliance with 23.221

If it turns out that the aircraft does have negative spin recovery characteristics we look into what it would take to fix them, and obtain an STC to do so.........again putting the aircraft in full compliance with 23.221.

Finally, we build a town mock-up with people and cars and houses. Pull the chute and let the aircraft land on it while taking video of the whole thing.

 

I am not being sarcastic, I am not joking.

 

I think we could do this and I think that no matter what results we have, Cirrus would be our biggest customer. I think that with the combined capabilities on this forum, whoever is not retired, could soon be.

 

Doug Hereford

[FlyingMonkey]

Another point is that when I am a PIC of an airplane, I am responsible for people in the airplane, not everybody in the world. My primary concern is the safety and survival of myself and my passengers. While I need to be concerned with others in so far as I am able, the fact is 99.9999% of what happens outside the airplane is out of my control.

 

I certainly want to avoid harming others, but accidents happen and the outcomes of them are usually not any more in control of a pilot than a driver on the road. If a tire blows out, you do everything you can to avoid killing people in the car first, and everybody else second. But it's not always up to you.

[Tom Baker]

Doug H, I know the numbers are kind of lop sided because there are far more airplanes making landings under control as compared to coming down under chute, but there have been more fatalities to people on the ground by the former compared to the latter.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35896336/ns/us_news-life/t/plane-kills-beach-jogger-emergency-landing/#.VqKQZeT2YdU

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/small-plane-crash-lands-on-florida-beach-killing-man/

 

http://www.sanbenitocountytoday.com/news/crime_and_fire/updated-hollister-man-killed-by-landing-plane-was-airport-commissioner/article_1270924e-3ca1-11e5-8a2d-438330b4f51e.html

 

I remember one that happened fairly close to where I live, but didn't find it. It was likely before everything made it onto the internet. These three were from just a couple minutes of searching.

[andyb]

Another point is that when I am a PIC of an airplane, I am responsible for people in the airplane, not everybody in the world. My primary concern is the safety and survival of myself and my passengers. While I need to be concerned with others in so far as I am able, the fact is 99.9999% of what happens outside the airplane is out of my control.

 

I certainly want to avoid harming others, but accidents happen and the outcomes of them are usually not any more in control of a pilot than a driver on the road. If a tire blows out, you do everything you can to avoid killing people in the car first, and everybody else second. But it's not always up to you.

And, to emphasize, in the case of the Cirrus, with a large statistical base, not one serious incident with a plane under canopy causing an issue on the ground. Not an issue in the absolute, to say nothing of the calculus considering the benefit to occupants of the plane.

 

The ground issue is a non issue.

 

Andy

[AZAV8OR]

Not responding to this particular post, but to the thread in general.

I purchased my first Cirrus in 2001, and it was the 145th produced. 15 years later they're at about 7,000 and during that time there's been a lot of evolution regarding the parachute. I believe that the protracted learning curve has caused loss of life, and to the degree that people flying other airframes with the parachute can learn from the Cirrus experience, all the better.

By far the biggest issue, in my observation, HAS NOT been taking on missions with the parachute that wouldn't and shouldn't otherwise be flown...it's the opposite, that being people not using it when they should.

While I'm sure that there are some Cirrus pilots that have used the parachute as a basis to go when they shouldn't have, I don't believe it to be a prevalent issue. Now there are some Cirrus pilots, myself included, that fly certain missions in a parachute equipped plane that they wouldn't otherwise fly. But to me, the discriminator is whether those flights are il-advised in the first place, or whether only flying them with the parachute adds conservatism. For example, I never used the parachute to fly in icing, or in ceilings below minimums. However, I did decide when I owned a Piper Warrior, that I wouldn't fly night, low IFR, or over mountains in a plane that didn't have either a turbine, a second piston engine, or a parachute. I believe only flying in these conditions with a parachute equipped plane was wise, conservative, and prudent. Honestly, I've gotten to the point that I avoid any flights in a single-engine piston plane without a parachute, or said differently, I use the parachute to justify my flying on a mission that I wouldn't fly without the parachute.

The real, hard-learned conclusion among the Cirrus community was that the life-taking danger was people not using the parachute when they could have, and paying the ultimate price for it. Coming to this life-saving conclusion took a good deal of pragmatism. It became necessary to understand that there are times in which the parachute can save lives when the pilot did something really stupid. This, in turn, required the Cirrus community to understand that eviscerating someone who made a mistake that lead to a pull might cause the next person not to pull and to die as a result. It was a huge culture change, going from "what a dumb - - -, how did he get himself into that situation" to "he did the right thing and lived to be with his family tonight." Part of that pragmatism was understanding that pilots have big egos, and to some pulling the parachute is admitting error, and that ego-driven decision was causing loss of life.

The "pull early pull often" mantra was one that I never liked, as it seemed to communicate a cavalier attitude about it all. It was replaced with "consider CAPS," which I feel is far better. It encourages people to weigh it as an option.

The Cirrus community has gone to great lengths to teach better decision-making, so the parachute isn't needed in the first place. Lots done there. At the same time, I don't observe it has done much good, and I believe that stupid pilots will be stupid pilots, no matter how much we admonish them or insult them. And, almost all good pilots I know have had a stupid incident in their lives.

What the Cirrus community has done, with great success, is to encourage people to use the parachute when appropriate, and not berate someone when they get into a situation that mandates using the parachute. Not that the pilot doesn't deserve being berated in some instances, but because doing so may cause the next pilot in a similar situation to not use the parachute.

As CT fliers, we have the opportunity to learn from another airframe user group's evolution, as I believe it's a great case study for us. We can't admonish people into not being stupid. Sorry. But we can avoid making comments and having a culture that discourages people (even stupid people) from taking an action that can save their life.

Andy

As a former Cirrus owner, I've kept my powder dry on this one, pondering how I should respond without sounding like a CAPS/BRS zealot. I'm glad I did. Andy, extremely well written!