Jump to content

Parachute Deployment Failure


Runtoeat

Recommended Posts

I found an interesting article in the Cirrus Pilot publication while sitting in my doctor's office.  There was a failure of the Cirrus CAPS during a flight in 2015.  Perhaps this was reported and I missed it. The pilot took off in known convective IMC and soon became disoriented.  He pulled the chute and it failed to deploy.  Reconstruction of his flight path shows he actually looped his aircraft twice and his flight was so erratic that the rocket tried to pull the chute out at the same time the plane went 90 degrees to the deployment.  The follow-up investigation concluded the rocket could not produce enough force to pull it out of the plane at the oblique angle.  See attached photo from the article.  After his deployment failure, he figured his best bet was to fly his Cirrus and ended up landing OK.  This was in the Jan/Feb 2015 Cirrus Pilot mag.

Cirrus CAPS.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found an interesting article in the Cirrus Pilot publication while sitting in my doctor's office.  There was a failure of the Cirrus CAPS during a flight in 2015.  Perhaps this was reported and I missed it. The pilot took off in known convective IMC and soon became disoriented.  He pulled the chute and it failed to deploy.  Reconstruction of his flight path shows he actually looped his aircraft twice and his flight was so erratic that the rocket tried to pull the chute out at the same time the plane went 90 degrees to the deployment.  The follow-up investigation concluded the rocket could not produce enough force to pull it out of the plane at the oblique angle.  See attached photo from the article.  After his deployment failure, he figured his best bet was to fly his Cirrus and ended up landing OK.  This was in the Jan/Feb 2015 Cirrus Pilot mag.

attachicon.gifCirrus CAPS.pdf

 

It's a pilot malfunction not a BRS fail.  There are strict parameters for the deployment of the parachute in the Cirrus.   In the turbo version you must be 600 feet agl and not flying faster than 170 kias. You cannot depend on the chute in a spin or if inverted.  All are stated in the POH and in the training material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He made his 1st mistake going up in terrible wx. Next mistake was fearing death and not heeding 'chute mfgr's direction to not pull during this terrifying "unusual attitude" situation. Not so sure it's not fault of 'chute. There is a question whether there needs to be more pull needed by rocket for "less than ideal" deployments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a pilot malfunction not a BRS fail.  There are strict parameters for the deployment of the parachute in the Cirrus.   In the turbo version you must be 600 feet agl and not flying faster than 170 kias. You cannot depend on the chute in a spin or if inverted.  All are stated in the POH and in the training material.

 

Uh, wait a minute.  IIRC the use of the CAPS/BRS is the *only* method approved/mentioned in the POH to recover from an inadvertent spin in a Cirrus?  

 

There is no reason a deployment in a spin should be problematic; the airplane is upright and at relatively low speed.  Inverted is a different matter.

 

If your Cirrus was completely out of your control, would you not attempt use the BRS after all other options were tried, if it were in an unusual attitude? 

 

EDIT:  From the SR22T POH:

 

• WARNING •

 

In the event of a spin, immediate CAPS activation is mandatory. Under no circumstances should the pilot attempt recovery from a spin other than by CAPS activation.

 

It looks like I know your POH better than you do!   :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

• WARNING •

 

In the event of a spin, immediate CAPS activation is mandatory. Under no circumstances should the pilot attempt recovery from a spin other than by CAPS activation.

 

 

That's a surprising instruction - with a little altitude in hand, there can't be too many pilots who wouldn't try to recover from the spin before pulling - it's sort of the natural order of doing things.  Is the reason for this that the design doesn't recover well from spins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will recover from a spin, and was spin tested and certified in Europe.

 

I believe the problem was the recovery technique needed was so aggressive that most pilots would likely fail in their attempt, and in doing so lose altitude that might be necessary for deployment.

 

I've done many hundreds of spins, but exclusively in planes where you could essentially let go and the plane would recover itself. Normal recovery was to just relax back pressure and apply opposite rudder.

 

In the Cirrus, and in some other planes, FULL forward yoke may be required, and in some planes rotation may actually increase for a turn or more before recovery begins. I think its reasonable to say that most pilots most of the time would fail in the attempt - hence Cirrus' advice.

 

Oh, and Andy is right and Cecil is wrong - the POH - and the training - is very clear on this point and I don't really see how it can be read any other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and Andy is right and Cecil is wrong - the POH - and the training - is very clear on this point and I don't really see how it can be read any other way.

 

The word "immediate" preceding "CAPS activation" makes it clear.  As you say, I don't know how it could be read or understood any other way.  No mention is made of recovering from the spin before deployment.

 

Not trying to get in a fight here, but I'm a bit concerned that a Cirrus owner (of the highest performance model) who has read the POH and gone through all the factory training doesn't understand the emergency procedures, to the point of thinking they are literally the *opposite* what they actually are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a surprising instruction - with a little altitude in hand, there can't be too many pilots who wouldn't try to recover from the spin before pulling - it's sort of the natural order of doing things.  Is the reason for this that the design doesn't recover well from spins?

 

Because Cirrus used the BRS as an alternate means of compliance with the FAR Part 23 spin recovery requirement, it's probably that the company's liability lawyers had some say in the POH language.  It may even be that the FAA won't allow then to advocate a spin recovery that has never been tested/certified in their documentation.

 

Given sufficient altitude I would certainly try to recover before using the chute.  But the POH does prohibit it pretty strongly:

 

"Under no circumstances should the pilot attempt recovery from a spin other than by CAPS activation."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not trying to get in a fight here, but I'm a bit concerned that a Cirrus owner (of the highest performance model) who has read the POH and gone through all the factory training doesn't understand the emergency procedures, to the point of thinking they are literally the *opposite* what they actually are.

Also of note is that he heard somewhere that 600' AGL is the minimum CAPS altitude. Over on COPA he's had it pointed out several times that that is not true, yet he persists in saying that.

 

In short, there is no minimum CAPS altitude. The only advice I recall is that 2,000' may be necessary for full deployment, so below that it's a bit of a gamble.

 

From the POH: "While attempting to glide to an airfield to perform a power off landing, the pilot must be continuously aware of altitude and ability to successfully perform the landing. Pilot must make the determination by 2000' AGL if the landing is assured or if CAPS will be required."

 

I'm curious as to where he got his information about the 600' CAPS minimum. Some pilots had/have a callout of "CAPS Alive" at 500', since that was the best option if the engine failed on takeoff, but with no expectation of a full deployment. My guess is that got bumped up a bit to 600' with later models, but is is NOT a minimum CAPS deployment altitude, which remains undefined.

 

Unless he can point out a source, in which case I stand corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure everyone (well, almost everyone) realized my reply was cynical. This guy had no idea where he was or which way was up or down.  His GPS reconstruction shows he actually did two complete loops while in IMC.  He stated that he had no idea where the cloud tops were when he departed and once he got into the soup, he got completely disoriented.  He broke thru the bottom of the clouds (accidentally?) and finally figured out what his attitude was.  The witness marks on the fuselage where the harness had been beating against it indicated the parachute had come partially out of it's bag but then had gone back into the bag.  Must have been a wild ride and I'm sure he didn't worry whether or not he was being politically correct about pulling the 'chute when the sh*t was hitting the fan.- As Andy's comments indicate, the recommendation is "when in doubt, pull it out" - the 'chute, that is.  :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a lot of experience in the Cirrus.  The only approved action in a spin is to deploy the CAPS, as Ed mentioned.

 

My very best understanding of the  incident in question was that the pilot wasn't in a spin, but a spiral.  Very different things in regard to inertial forces on the plane.  The incident demonstrated that in certain extreme situations the CAPS won't work.  It didn't demonstrate that a spin was one of those situations.

 

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a lot of experience in the Cirrus.  The only approved action in a spin is to deploy the CAPS, as Ed mentioned.

 

My very best understanding of the  incident in question was that the pilot wasn't in a spin, but a spiral.  Very different things in regard to inertial forces on the plane.  The incident demonstrated that in certain extreme situations the CAPS won't work.  It didn't demonstrate that a spin was one of those situations.

 

Andy

 

Agreed, a spiral dive builds speed very quickly, whereas a spin typically does not.  The spiral dive when you can't see and are disoriented is very much more dangerous, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, there is no minimum CAPS altitude. The only advice I recall is that 2,000' may be necessary for full deployment, so below that it's a bit of a gamble.

 

 

As I think I have said many times, my mindset is that if I *need* the chute, I'm using it, regardless of altitude or attitude.  The worst that can happen is it fails and nothing has changed, but best case it saves my bacon or at least slows the impact a bit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also of note is that he heard somewhere that 600' AGL is the minimum CAPS altitude. Over on COPA he's had it pointed out several times that that is not true, yet he persists in saying that.

 

In short, there is no minimum CAPS altitude. The only advice I recall is that 2,000' may be necessary for full deployment, so below that it's a bit of a gamble.

 

From the POH: "While attempting to glide to an airfield to perform a power off landing, the pilot must be continuously aware of altitude and ability to successfully perform the landing. Pilot must make the determination by 2000' AGL if the landing is assured or if CAPS will be required."

 

I'm curious as to where he got his information about the 600' CAPS minimum. Some pilots had/have a callout of "CAPS Alive" at 500', since that was the best option if the engine failed on takeoff, but with no expectation of a full deployment. My guess is that got bumped up a bit to 600' with later models, but is is NOT a minimum CAPS deployment altitude, which remains undefined.

 

Unless he can point out a source, in which case I stand corrected.

 

In the older Cirrus 500' was taught as the minimum deployment altitude which I believe was demonstrated by a pilot with a asymmetric flap issue in the traffic pattern.  600' is taught with the new Generation 5 SR22T with a now 3600# gross weight.

 

Deployment speed was also increased from 133KIAS to 140KIAS in the G5.

 

The following is straight from the manual. 

 

If the engine fails immediately after becoming airborne, abort on the runway if possible. In most cases, when the engine fails below 500 feet AGL, the landing should be made straight ahead, turning only to avoid obstructions. In such a case, lower the nose to maintain airspeed and establish a glide attitude. If the engine fails between 500 feet and 2000 feet AGL, CAPS activation most likely is the safest option. After establishing a glide for landing or activating CAPS, perform as many of the checklist items as time permits.

 

 

General Deployment Information Deployment Speed The maximum speed at which deployment has been demonstrated is 140 KIAS. Deployment at higher speeds could subject the parachute and aircraft to excessive loads that could result in structural failure. Once a decision has been made to deploy the CAPS, make all reasonable efforts to slow to the minimum possible airspeed. However, if time and altitude are critical, and/or ground impact is imminent, the CAPS should be activated regardless of airspeed. Deployment Altitude No minimum altitude for deployment has been set. This is because the actual altitude loss during a particular deployment depends upon the airplane's airspeed, altitude and attitude at deployment as well as other environmental factors. In all cases, however, the chances of a successful deployment increase with altitude. In the event of a spin, immediate CAPS activation is mandatory regardless of altitude.  In other situations, the pilot in command may elect to troubleshoot a mechanical problem or attempt to descend out of icing conditions if altitude and flight conditions permit.  As a data point, altitude loss from level flight deployments has been demonstrated at less than 400 feet. Deployment at such a low altitude leaves little or no time for the aircraft to stabilize under the canopy or for the cabin to be secured.  A low altitude deployment increases the risk of injury or death and should be avoided.  If circumstances permit, it is advisable to activate the CAPS at or above 2,000 feet AGL. While CAPS activation above 2,000 feet is not necessarily safer than activation at 2,000 feet in terms of the altitude needed to deploy the parachute and slow the descent of the aircraft, there are other risks associated with delaying deployment.  Distraction, deterioration in flight conditions, aircraft damage, pilot injury or incapacitation all could take place above 2,000 feet and prevent a timely deployment. At any altitude, once the CAPS is determined to be the only alternative available for saving the aircraft occupants, deploy the system without delay.

 

Deployment Attitude The CAPS has been tested in all flap configurations at speeds ranging from Vso to Va. Most CAPS testing was accomplished from a level attitude. Deployment from a spin was also tested. From these tests it was found that as long as the parachute was introduced to the free air by the rocket, it would successfully recover the aircraft into its level descent attitude under

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Eric.

 

The key is this:

 

"No minimum altitude for deployment has been set...As a data point, altitude loss from level flight deployments has been demonstrated at less than 400 feet. Deployment at such a low altitude leaves little or no time for the aircraft to stabilize under the canopy or for the cabin to be secured. A low altitude deployment increases the risk of injury or death and should be avoided. If circumstances permit, it is advisable to activate the CAPS at or above 2,000 feet AGL....At any altitude, once the CAPS is determined to be the only alternative available for saving the aircraft occupants, deploy the system without delay."

 

Maybe it's just semantics. But there is no minimum CAPS altitude as the above makes clear. At the 600' Cecil keeps mentioning, there is a good chance of injury or death, and one should not leave the impression that CAPS is effective at 600'. A pull at 600' could leave one paralyzed or worse - but it may still be the best option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring to a spiral dive, not just a simple single or double spin.  The POH is more simplistic on CAPS deployment because HESITATION is the larger goal to overcome.   Cirrus doesn't want want pilots 'thinking' about recovery and saving the plane or trying to achieve a more stable and flat attitude before deploying in a serious emergency.

 

In the simulator training you get a chance to spin the plane and pull CAPS.  We did several...some with immediate pull before the plane completed a single spin, some close to the ground, some higher up...and some where rudder could and was used to stop the spin before pulling the CAPS handle.  And you also deploy under simulated and surprised mid-air (complete with loud banging and shutting of the seat).  The discussion reached a lot more detail regarding deployment characteristics.    The chances of a successful deployment go way down the faster the plane is spinning.  Still, Cirrus doesn't want pilots to hesitate to pull the chute, not screw around trying to right the plane.

 

I am also doing instrument training right now with my CFII (the guy that trained me to become a Private).  We were flying to Las Vegas last week going down the middle of Nevada where there are few to no airports.  He wanted to impress emergency planning and always be looking for an airport.  I pointed out there were no airports.  So he asked what I do in the Cirrus to prepare for an emergency landing.  I said Cirrus is more concerned with altitude and speed and a flat area in order to pull CAPS.  He insisted that the 'proper' response is to try to 'save the plane' and I just laughed and reminded him we were in a CIrrus and that the philosophy is 'sacrificial plane'  'save the humans.'   Though he has hours in a Cirrus he still doesn't accept that idea - this is what Cirrus calls the 'primacy effect' older pilots (and younger ones being trained by older guys who don't buy into the idea of a parachute) have and what Cirrus CAPS training specifically targets to 'undo.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring to a spiral dive, not just a simple single or double spin...The chances of a successful deployment go way down the faster the plane is spinning.

Cecil,

 

This is yet another case where imprecise language is causing confusion. In the earlier post saying spin when you meant spiral - and they are two very different animals.

 

And still not sure what you mean when you say "the faster the plane is spinning". In a developed spin the speed remains constant, and importantly very slow. Though I will give you that the rate of rotation does increase initially in the developing stage.

 

Like I said, it sure seems like you are conflating two different maneuvers, either because the difference is not clear to you or as I said your language is just imprecise - and confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The worst that can happen is it fails and nothing has changed"...Hmmm.

Worse would be that the chute doesn't open properly or becomes tangled in its shrouds - a streamer, which you have no way to jettison. You now have a huge drag load, probably greater than engine thrust at flying speed. Acting well above the cg, this drag it will probably produce a moment greater the the elevator can compensate for at any reasonable landing speed. So now you have neither a parachute with which to make a vertical landing, or a functional airfoil to sustain flight to glide in on.

Most jumpers would never accept this risk. They have a cutaway system and emergency chute (though I've still seen several bounce anyway).

Worse would be an opening above rated speed which rips the chute, resulting in what is, again, essentially a streamer.

Worse would be that the parachute opens fine but you land on a highway in front of an 18 wheeler; or in front a family in a station wagon that swerves into the on-coming to avoid you; or the wind blows you into the side of a cliff that shreds the chute on the way down.

Low probability events? Sure. But they make the chute a bad choice if you can safely land without it.

Mike Koerner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they make the chute a bad choice IF you can safely land without it.

Mike Koerner

I think the bolded word is the key.

 

Many pilots die or are seriously injured when attempting off-field landings. Fields that look great can have hidden dangers, and many pilots prove not up to the task. The lower speeds of LSA's serve to their advantage there, often making even off-field landings that go wrong survivable - think of the CT flipped on its back in what seems to be a perfectly groomed soccer field.

 

More than a decade ago I expressed similar concerns over on COPA about becoming a passenger in your own plane under canopy. I used the same 18-wheeler example and getting blown off a cliff examples. Also getting blown into an electrical substation.

 

All of which emphasize that pulling CAPS in a Cirrus is not without some risk.

 

But we have quite a track record of successful pulls to look at now, and I think the data so far weighs heavily towards pulling the chute unless over a runway or with one in easy gliding range.

 

I've posted this ad nauseum, but for newbies it's well worth a watch when you have time:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The worst that can happen is it fails and nothing has changed"...Hmmm.

Worse would be that the chute doesn't open properly or becomes tangled in its shrouds - a streamer, which you have no way to jettison. You now have a huge drag load, probably greater than engine thrust at flying speed. Acting well above the cg, this drag it will probably produce a moment greater the the elevator can compensate for at any reasonable landing speed. So now you have neither a parachute with which to make a vertical landing, or a functional airfoil to sustain flight to glide in on.

Most jumpers would never accept this risk. They have a cutaway system and emergency chute (though I've still seen several bounce anyway).

Worse would be an opening above rated speed which rips the chute, resulting in what is, again, essentially a streamer.

Worse would be that the parachute opens fine but you land on a highway in front of an 18 wheeler; or in front a family in a station wagon that swerves into the on-coming to avoid you; or the wind blows you into the side of a cliff that shreds the chute on the way down.

Low probability events? Sure. But they make the chute a bad choice if you can safely land without it.

Mike Koerner

 

A few things:

 

*  A huge drag load on the airplane when you are out of control and plummeting to Earth is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

*  Unlike a para-jumper, the BRS *is* our emergency chute.  Or do you think we really need TWO BRS to be safe?

 

*  As Eddie pointed out, big 'if" there, related to off-airport landings.  And if you botch the approach or the wind shifts...then what?

 

*  No emergency option is risk free.  The BRS has shown itself to work almost always (probably over 99% of the time, but I don't have the number for sure) when deployed within design parameters, and often well outside of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...