Cirrus CAPS deployment option during emergency
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cirrus CAPS deployment option during emergency
I've been strongly advised by my cirrus instructor not to ever deploy the CAPS over land.
However though, he says thats an option to consider when flying over water. He says, "when flying over land, always try to land the plane as you will do with any other plane during an emergency".
When flying over water, you should consider deploying the CAPS. That makes sense to me.
I'm of the opinion that when the CAPS is deployed, you virtually have no control of the aircraft anymore.
Any Cirrus pilot here ever deployed the CAPS? How was the landing and final outcome? Did the aircraft sustain any damage?
I'm not quite sure if this is something I should try to simulate.
I appreciate your thoughts in this respect.
WP
However though, he says thats an option to consider when flying over water. He says, "when flying over land, always try to land the plane as you will do with any other plane during an emergency".
When flying over water, you should consider deploying the CAPS. That makes sense to me.I'm of the opinion that when the CAPS is deployed, you virtually have no control of the aircraft anymore.
Any Cirrus pilot here ever deployed the CAPS? How was the landing and final outcome? Did the aircraft sustain any damage?
I'm not quite sure if this is something I should try to simulate.
I appreciate your thoughts in this respect.
WP
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if you loose your wing over land (due for example collision with other aircraft) and you have no control ? Does your instructor also keeps his statement ?
Also ask him what the procedure is when you get into a spin with the Cirrus.. even over land.....
Also ask him what the procedure is when you get into a spin with the Cirrus.. even over land.....
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Aylesbury,Bucks
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds reasonable to take the approach to land the plane if you can. If something is so bad that it would not be possible then use the CAPS.
I understood that most of the energy absorption was done in the wheel/landing gear. So when using the CAPS over water MAJOR injuries would occur because nearly all the impact is transferred to the people inside. This may be hearsay so I would check it out ( I read it on one of forums in the states some time ago) and if so I would attempt to "land" on water - rather than taking all the impact in my back.
I understood that most of the energy absorption was done in the wheel/landing gear. So when using the CAPS over water MAJOR injuries would occur because nearly all the impact is transferred to the people inside. This may be hearsay so I would check it out ( I read it on one of forums in the states some time ago) and if so I would attempt to "land" on water - rather than taking all the impact in my back.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAPS brings you into contact with the surface at about 1600ft per minute if my memory is correct. (I think that v hard landings (the ones where you look to see if the oleo has come through the wing) are about 600ft per minute). Thus the CAPS will wreck the aircraft and most likely injure you. The up side is that it will not kill you which as has been said - loss of a wing at 6000ft probably will.
If you are in control of the aircraft and think that you can make a more gentle arrival than that then do so.
Regards,
DFC
If you are in control of the aircraft and think that you can make a more gentle arrival than that then do so.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by denhamflyer
I understood that most of the energy absorption was done in the wheel/landing gear
Originally Posted by worldpilot
I've been strongly advised by my cirrus instructor not to ever deploy the CAPS over land.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAPS brings you into contact with the surface at about 1600ft per minute if my memory is correct. (I think that v hard landings (the ones where you look to see if the oleo has come through the wing) are about 600ft per minute). Thus the CAPS will wreck the aircraft and most likely injure you. The up side is that it will not kill you which as has been said - loss of a wing at 6000ft probably will.
(600 fpm = 6 kts vertical).
In my Rallye, if it hits the fan, I can hold the stick fully aft and come down at 700 fpm (I have tried it).....
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lymington
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The decision would be much easier to make if you knew for certain that the chute is actually going to open. In Australia recently, the chute did not open properly leaving no other options to the crew.
My feeling is that the chute should not be regarded as an "alternative landing" procedure, but more of a "last available option".
It gets tricky when deciding bettween marginal options, ie: hitting the water in nil wind at around 70mph (which is pretty fast), or using the chute. If the wind increases, then the ditch option might be more favourable until the waves start to become walls.
One ex-chute pilot said that in hindsight, he wished he had pulled the chute at a lower altitude, otherwise the landing point could be quite hard to predict. Although some pilots have kept the engine running so they can reduce the drift in the descent.
My feeling is that the chute should not be regarded as an "alternative landing" procedure, but more of a "last available option".
It gets tricky when deciding bettween marginal options, ie: hitting the water in nil wind at around 70mph (which is pretty fast), or using the chute. If the wind increases, then the ditch option might be more favourable until the waves start to become walls.
One ex-chute pilot said that in hindsight, he wished he had pulled the chute at a lower altitude, otherwise the landing point could be quite hard to predict. Although some pilots have kept the engine running so they can reduce the drift in the descent.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot must activate CAPS swiftly in accordance with the procedures and restrictions in the POH. In other words, the aircraft must be operated within demonstrated CAPS deployment guidelines to include an airspeed and altitude and the decision must be made early.
If the aircraft is operating below the minimum demonstrated CAPS deployment altitude or operating above the maximum CAPS deployment airspeed, there is a possibility that CAPS may fail to deploy properly. There have been some situations with the pilot activating CAPS above the maximum deployment airspeed after an icing encounter (this cirrus plane had TKS anti-ice capability according to records)....without succes...
If the aircraft is operating below the minimum demonstrated CAPS deployment altitude or operating above the maximum CAPS deployment airspeed, there is a possibility that CAPS may fail to deploy properly. There have been some situations with the pilot activating CAPS above the maximum deployment airspeed after an icing encounter (this cirrus plane had TKS anti-ice capability according to records)....without succes...
Last edited by sternone; 25th Oct 2007 at 14:21.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all
From what I have read the CAPS deployment would be the very final choice made by the pilot for his aircraft. The aircraft would be written off but the occupants should survive - providing the necessary actions are taken from the POH in relation to the parachute deployment.
RudeNot2
Did the aircraft sustain any damage?
RudeNot2
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I can't think of an aircraft type more likely to lose an essential part of its structure during flight and require a parachute.
SB - obviously not a fan then?
SB - obviously not a fan then?
The chute is a LAST OPTION!
It doesn't matter where you are, if it really is your LAST OPTION, pull the handle, that's what it's there for!
Interesting reading the link to a first hand account.
Who knows how well you'd cope in that situation?
My initial instinct would be to continue with the approach, since the airframe had apparently survived the ordeal until then, but I'd then be in pretty deep do do if the wings folded 250ft from the ground!
So I reckon he's a better man than me!
It doesn't matter where you are, if it really is your LAST OPTION, pull the handle, that's what it's there for!
Interesting reading the link to a first hand account.
Who knows how well you'd cope in that situation?
My initial instinct would be to continue with the approach, since the airframe had apparently survived the ordeal until then, but I'd then be in pretty deep do do if the wings folded 250ft from the ground!
So I reckon he's a better man than me!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I can't think of an aircraft type more likely to lose an essential part of its structure during flight and require a parachute.
There have been a number of CAPS deployments. Each is well reported. I would have thought any Cirrius operator would want to have read some if not all of them.
Personally, I would have thought the obvious circumstances for deployment include
1. In IMC with a low base,
2. Mountains or terrain where a successful forced landing is unlikely,
3. Sea with high swell,
4. Any aircraft failure which results in serious control issues,
5. Icing, in circumstances where the airframe has accumulated a dangerous amount of ice (depending on the circumstances),
6. Pilot incapcitation,
7. At night - depending on the terrain,
8. Perhaps over heavily forested terrrain where a landing clear is not possible.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAPS deployment is expected to result in loss of the airframe.....may result in death
Here is a quote from the Cirrus POH:
Quote"The Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) should be activated in
the event of a life-threatening emergency where CAPS deployment is
determined to be safer than continued flight and landing.
• WARNING •
CAPS deployment is expected to result in loss of the airframe
and, depending upon adverse external factors such as high
deployment speed, low altitude, rough terrain or high wind
conditions, may result in severe injury or death to the
occupants. Because of this, CAPS should only be activated
when any other means of handling the emergency would not
protect the occupants from serious injury."Quote
Well, I will try to land that plane no matter what the circumstances are. I'm of the opinion that I've a better choice when I have the possibility of applying any control measures than just leaving the outcome to a parachute.
WP
Quote"The Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) should be activated in
the event of a life-threatening emergency where CAPS deployment is
determined to be safer than continued flight and landing.
• WARNING •
CAPS deployment is expected to result in loss of the airframe
and, depending upon adverse external factors such as high
deployment speed, low altitude, rough terrain or high wind
conditions, may result in severe injury or death to the
occupants. Because of this, CAPS should only be activated
when any other means of handling the emergency would not
protect the occupants from serious injury."Quote
Well, I will try to land that plane no matter what the circumstances are. I'm of the opinion that I've a better choice when I have the possibility of applying any control measures than just leaving the outcome to a parachute.
WP
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by worldpilot
Well, I will try to land that plane no matter what the circumstances are. I'm of the opinion that I've a better choice when I have the possibility of applying any control measures than just leaving the outcome to a parachute.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a difference between a GA plane which (if SE) has a max Vs of 61kt and should be able to do a forced landing in a field, and something with a Vs of say 150kt which will almost certainly disintegrate in any landing except on a runway.
Over water, always pull the chute - the plane is lost anyway (it will sink and even if retrieved will be scrapped due to water damage).
Over forest or rough terrain, it's a virtual certainly of a writeoff, so pull the chute.
That leaves a forced landing in a suitable field, and I would go for a forced landing there because if pulled off correctly the cost is only a few k, and nil if one can fly out of there.
If an aileron fell off (which happened once, IIRC) I would fly using the rudder, and go to some place with a big runway. One doesn't need ailerons to fly a plane.
Over water, always pull the chute - the plane is lost anyway (it will sink and even if retrieved will be scrapped due to water damage).
Over forest or rough terrain, it's a virtual certainly of a writeoff, so pull the chute.
That leaves a forced landing in a suitable field, and I would go for a forced landing there because if pulled off correctly the cost is only a few k, and nil if one can fly out of there.
If an aileron fell off (which happened once, IIRC) I would fly using the rudder, and go to some place with a big runway. One doesn't need ailerons to fly a plane.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then there's the question of who is underneath... If you survive yourself but kill some poor guy on the ground in the process you've done a really crappy job. Once you pull that chute you no longer have a say in the matter!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then there's the question of who is underneath... If you survive yourself but kill some poor guy on the ground in the process you've done a really crappy job. Once you pull that chute you no longer have a say in the matter!
Unlikely. AFAIK the last aviation-unrelated 3rd party casualty in UK aviation was Lockerbie, and that one made a right big mess on the ground.
Unlikely. AFAIK the last aviation-unrelated 3rd party casualty in UK aviation was Lockerbie, and that one made a right big mess on the ground.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not certain landing on water would always be a candidate for deployment.
If you review the accident records you will find that the vast majority of forced landings on the sea or water are successful and injuries are minimal (although the subsequent death toll from exposure is another issue).
Yes, the aircraft will always be lost (even if recovered) in these circumstances but the concern is giving the crew and pax the best chance of survival.
Hitting water at speed after a chute deployment is going to result in hard landing (the water will seem like concrete at that speed). Perhaps the flatter the conditions the harder the impact, and perhaps harder than on land because the u/c will not provide any breaking resistance - the wings and under belly will take the full force.
Perhaps ideally in conditions with a big swell deployment might make best sense because a ditching is far more unpredictable and the uneven surface of the water when the deployed aircraft contacts is likely to spread the load,
in conditions with a very light swell a conventional ditching might make more sense,
and strangely, and you will know if you have done some float aircraft flying, in mirror carm conditions a deployment might be marginally better despite my earlier commnents because making a reasonable landing on the surface is going to be difficult.
Of course, I might be totally wrong.
If you review the accident records you will find that the vast majority of forced landings on the sea or water are successful and injuries are minimal (although the subsequent death toll from exposure is another issue).
Yes, the aircraft will always be lost (even if recovered) in these circumstances but the concern is giving the crew and pax the best chance of survival.
Hitting water at speed after a chute deployment is going to result in hard landing (the water will seem like concrete at that speed). Perhaps the flatter the conditions the harder the impact, and perhaps harder than on land because the u/c will not provide any breaking resistance - the wings and under belly will take the full force.
Perhaps ideally in conditions with a big swell deployment might make best sense because a ditching is far more unpredictable and the uneven surface of the water when the deployed aircraft contacts is likely to spread the load,
in conditions with a very light swell a conventional ditching might make more sense,
and strangely, and you will know if you have done some float aircraft flying, in mirror carm conditions a deployment might be marginally better despite my earlier commnents because making a reasonable landing on the surface is going to be difficult.
Of course, I might be totally wrong.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If an aileron fell off (which happened once, IIRC) I would fly using the rudder, and go to some place with a big runway. One doesn't need ailerons to fly a plane.
Hitting water at speed after a chute deployment is going to result in hard landing (the water will seem like concrete at that speed)