CTLS crash at Fon Du Lac airport in Wisconsin.

[Doug G.]

The rocket fires for three seconds, which pulls the enclosing cover off the folded and compressed cute which then inflates. Takes a little time. 50' wouldn't be enough.

[gbigs]

Roger is right...from BRS website - full parachute inflation could occur as low as 260-290 feet

 

Careful.  The min height for a successful chute pull is dependent on the aircraft, it's weight and how the chute is attached to the airframe.   There is no general number.

[Doug G.]

I would add that even though there is a minimum stated altitude I think it has been said that it <may> help below the minimum. If you are at 50' when LOC begins though the chute probably won't help. And, you probably won't have time to react and pull.

[FlyingMonkey]

The rocket fires for three seconds, which pulls the enclosing cover off the folded and compressed cute which then inflates. Takes a little time. 50' wouldn't be enough.

 

Doug I agree, but I have stated here several times that if I'm in a situation where I think I need the BRS, I will pull the handle regardless of airspeed or altitude (though maybe not attitude -- I'm not sure I'd pull inverted).  In my mind at least the streaming chute package will act as additional drag to scrub off a little energy, even if it don't get full inflation or good bridle stretch.

 

This was a sad incident, RIP to the pilot and condolences to his family.

[Adam]

Backdrop:

 

The NTSB lists 60 accidents / incidents in Flight Design aircraft in its database.  There have been 4 fatalities in 3 crashes in less than 12 months (when you include this latest death) and a total of 6 fatalities, all since 2013.  There are ~360 Flight Design aircraft in the active FAA registration database (I didn't check the latest number, going from memory on that stat)

 

Question:

 

I wonder how our fleet statistics compare to those of other aircraft fleets?  Feels like we are having a relatively high number of accidents / incidents and the fatality rate (that was zero for a long time) is now starting to creep up.

 

Any accident - regardless of cause, is tragic, condolences to the family and friends of the deceased and prayers for a speedy recovery of the other passenger. 

 

As pilots we need to constantly learn from these incidents.  I recently started participating in the FAA's Wings program (with the goal of never doing a BFR again!) and feel it is a nice way to constantly force myself to keep learning.

[Anticept]

A lot of accidents are pilot error. I'll start being worried when I see more mechanical failures.

[Cluemeister]

Adam, are these the three you're referencing?

 

- Sheriff's office CFIT

- Night water crash New York

- Fond du Lac

[gbigs]

I would add that even though there is a minimum stated altitude I think it has been said that it <may> help below the minimum. If you are at 50' when LOC begins though the chute probably won't help. And, you probably won't have time to react and pull.

 

For the Flight Design CT there is no stated minimum altitude.  And that is a big problem for CT flyers.

[Doug G.]

For the Flight Design CT there is no stated minimum altitude. And that is a big problem for CT flyers.

Not a hard minimum but there is an "as low as" statement. I don't understand how that is a "big problem."

[gbigs]

Not a hard minimum but there is an "as low as" statement. I don't understand how that is a "big problem."

 

As low as?  Where is that stated and what does it mean?

[Doug G.]

As low as? Where is that stated and what does it mean?

If you have followed this post it was provided earlier by another member. How is this a "big problem"?

[gbigs]

If you have followed this post it was provided earlier by another member. How is this a "big problem"?

 

So you don't know the answer?  Again, unless you know the MIN AGL for the Flight Design CT for a chute pull then you are flying blind in regard to that safety feature.

[FlyingMonkey]

Jeez, it's not like when you are tumbling to the Earth and fighting for control you are paying much attention to whether you are at 400ft or 300ft.  Pull the damn handle if you need it.  If it works great, if it doesn't you have lost nothing.

[gbigs]

Jeez, it's not like when you are tumbling to the Earth and fighting for control you are paying much attention to whether you are at 400ft or 300ft.  Pull the damn handle if you need it.  If it works great, if it doesn't you have lost nothing.

 

The number matters on takeoff (and to a small extent if you are trying to restart the engine in descent). 

 

I did not fully appreciate how critical these numbers are till I was factory trained to fly the Cirrus.  The FD CT may as well not have a chute if you are not PREFLIGHTING the numbers and trained in how and when to use it.   No one should be dying in a Flight Design given the the BRS chute...yet some are...that happened in Cirrus for years before the new training regimen and the emphasis on chute training (getting rid of the primacy effect). 

[Adam]

Adam, are these the three you're referencing?

 

- Sheriff's office CFIT

- Night water crash New York

- Fond du Lac

 

Yes, those are the ones...   and I appreciate Corey's comment on pilot error v mechanical failure.  

 

60 accidents against a fleet of ~360 in the USA is a 1 in 6 rate.  (I realize some have multiple accidents against the same tail number and lessens the ratio slightly)  Just saying it feels high to me but maybe its not.  More thinking out loud and wondering what the statistics might tell us about a need for specific pilot training needs in the CT.  Similar to how Cirrus jumped on the training bandwagon with respect to CAPS and stalls improving their accident statistics in recent history.  Wondering how we all can avoid some of these pilot error issues and improve our skills.

 

Example on Fon du Lac, It appears there was some type of engine issue causing poor performance or loss of power on takeoff.  Early indications (way too early to know for sure) is that an attempted 180 and return to base was on the pilots mind but lacking altitude and power may have created a stall situation.  I immediately thought of my own checklist for Engine Failure on Takeoff,  "No Turn Back Below 750' AGL"  "Land forward +/- 30 degrees"  "Consider Deploying BRS".   Its a lot to think about in a few seconds.  We will know in a year or so when NTSB weighs in.  

[Ed Cesnalis]

3 incidents are too small a sampling to arrive at any meaningful ratio.  It's not like all 3 had wing failures.  

[Anticept]

AFS 400, Edsel Ford, told me once that he compiles LSA statistics. He's one of the sources that makes the nice graphs that are used by different organizations.

 

Basically, as it stands right now, more than half of the total light sport accidents are because of high time pilots transitioning to LSAs. He said maybe these people aren't respecting the airplanes or realizing they can be more of a handful than other aircraft, and I agree.

 

I see a lot of transitioning pilots have some trouble, so I can see how this could happen.

 

The reality is, I think a lot of it has to do with the CFIs that teach them too. An LSA should be treated like a vintage plane. They require a higher skill level to operate.

[Doug G.]

The third class medical change should fix that problem. Although it may not b good for Light Sport, it never made sense to force someone out of a plane they have a ton of experience in into an LSA.

[ralarcon]

AFS 400, Edsel Ford, told me once that he compiles LSA statistics. He's one of the sources that makes the nice graphs that are used by different organizations.

 

Basically, as it stands right now, more than half of the total light sport accidents are because of high time pilots transitioning to LSAs. He said maybe these people aren't respecting the airplanes or realizing they can be more of a handful than other aircraft, and I agree.

 

I see a lot of transitioning pilots have some trouble, so I can see how this could happen.

 

The reality is, I think a lot of it has to do with the CFIs that teach them too. An LSA should be treated like a vintage plane. They require a higher skill level to operate.

Very true, I saw a Tecnam 2002 , brand new, severely damaged, by a current major airline pilot, upon landing (he had just bought it). My impression is that most private and commercial pilots think Sport Pilots are, generally, poorly trained and that LSA's are easy to fly, but brittle.

 

Cheers

[Anticept]

Very true, I saw a Tecnam 2002 , brand new, severely damaged, by a current major airline pilot, upon landing (he had just bought it). My impression is that most private and commercial pilots think Sport Pilots are, generally, poorly trained and that LSA's are easy to fly, but brittle.

 

Cheers

 

This is what I see as well. Hopefully he takes it as a lesson and doesn't blame the airplane, which I see a lot of that as well (followed by them getting a wakeup call when I tell them exactly what the problem is).

 

I've heard people say LSAs are unsafe because they take the whole umbrella of accidents. I often don't take too kindly to that either and tell them about accident statistics in Cessnas (172s are pretty good, but if you include other models it's actually fair).

 

Basically this stuff is a tad bit of a personal issue that I have. The majority of pilots are good people, but a loud few are hurting an industry. It all stems from pride.

[FastEddieB]

I find its a tendency to think skills are absolute.

 

IOW, to think that, as a pilot, 12G20 should be no problem as a crosswind.

 

When in fact, 12G20 may not be a problem in a Cirrus or Aztec or 757. But the same pilots with the same wind can end up in a world of hurt if they can't scale down their expectations to fit the pilot/aircraft combination.

 

I know I have to constantly remind myself of that in my Sky Arrow and be ready to cancel or divert for winds that were never a problem before.

 

As an aside, look for a thread from me about minimum BRS altitudes - I don't think this is quite the proper place for it.

[FlyingMonkey]

Very true, I saw a Tecnam 2002 , brand new, severely damaged, by a current major airline pilot, upon landing (he had just bought it). My impression is that most private and commercial pilots think Sport Pilots are, generally, poorly trained and that LSA's are easy to fly, but brittle.

 

Cheers

 

My experience is that, on the whole, LSA pilots who manage to get plenty of hours in become very good stick-and-rudder pilots, because they literally *have* to.  Lightweight airplanes that have low inertia and low wing loading pretty much demand it.  The guys who are transitioning from larger airplanes, don't get enough hours in annually, or get inadequate training seem to be most at risk for accidents.

[Runtoeat]

As mentioned earlier, my friend who is IFR rated and flies a fully IFR certified airplane made the decision not to depart due to low ceilings and bad weather.  While fueling his airplane he heard the crash and responded with others to extract the pilot and passenger.  Comments about capabilities and errors of pilots may be pertinent to the CT crash discussed here.  Until there is an official statement from the FAA, we will not know if mechanical, medical or weather or a combination of these was the cause.  I am saddened by the death of the pilot and hope the passenger fully recovers.

[gbigs]

I have gone from the high wing CT to the much larger and faster low wing Cirrus SR22T.  The larger plane was 'scary' at first due to it's high performance and higher pattern/landing speeds.  But the plane fly's like a bus compared to the far more agile and stick sensitive CT. 

 

The CT is also about twice as prone to being bumped around in light to mod turbulence - the mass is a quarter of the 3600 lbs Cirrus.  An ATP will see this exaggerated set of differences even more.    The CT is easier on approach because you can pull the throttle to idle on base to mid base and easily make the runway and land (pitching only).    So the biggest problem these guys must be having is being patient once over the runway (and dealing with light cross winds when present) due to the float of the CT versus heavier planes.

[ralarcon]

As mentioned earlier, my friend who is IFR rated and flies a fully IFR certified airplane made the decision not to depart due to low ceilings and bad weather.  While fueling his airplane he heard the crash and responded with others to extract the pilot and passenger.  Comments about capabilities and errors of pilots may be pertinent to the CT crash discussed here.  Until there is an official statement from the FAA, we will not know if mechanical, medical or weather or a combination of these was the cause.  I am saddened by the death of the pilot and hope the passenger fully recovers.

Yes, we digressed a bit, (not uncommon). We are all saddened by the fatality, and wish the injured passenger a quick recovery.

 

Cheers