Aircraft lands in Cheltenham garden
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As previously mentioned the UK low flying rules do not apply if you are landing or taking off at an airport which it looks like this chap was so he was not obliged to make up his own final approach profile by maintaining glide ability (although the approach to westerly runway does keep you high over Cheltenham)
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,635
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
Pilots by definition accept flying risks to themselves and their aircraft once they make the decision to fly. However fixed wing pilots are legally required to abide by the "glide clear" rule. You are required to plan this in advance, no argument about it, the CAA take no prisoners in this respect.
If a pilot in UK fails to plan his flight properly, loses his engine in a place where he cannot glide clear where he should have been able to, then as a last resort uses the BRS to save his own neck, that pilot had better be prepared to take the legal and financial consequences of those actions.
With regard to this particular occurrence, which was over a UK town, it may or may not have been caused by full or partial engine failure and the evidence already seen/heard suggests it may well not have been. However, one thing is certain - it was by mere chance that the aircraft caused no damage to innocent folk on the ground, especially as the prop was still turning, presumably under engine power. The pilot may have suffered some other major failure, either aircraft or human and felt he had no other option. In which case the "glide clear" argument doesn't apply.
It has been stated a number of times that the aircraft was flying a GNSS approach to RW27 at the time it went down. Earlier I posted the METARS bracketing the time the incident occurred. These show the wind as easterly and there is also a GNSS approach for RW09. I'm sure the reasons for that anomaly will come out in the AAIB report.
If a pilot in UK fails to plan his flight properly, loses his engine in a place where he cannot glide clear where he should have been able to, then as a last resort uses the BRS to save his own neck, that pilot had better be prepared to take the legal and financial consequences of those actions.
With regard to this particular occurrence, which was over a UK town, it may or may not have been caused by full or partial engine failure and the evidence already seen/heard suggests it may well not have been. However, one thing is certain - it was by mere chance that the aircraft caused no damage to innocent folk on the ground, especially as the prop was still turning, presumably under engine power. The pilot may have suffered some other major failure, either aircraft or human and felt he had no other option. In which case the "glide clear" argument doesn't apply.
It has been stated a number of times that the aircraft was flying a GNSS approach to RW27 at the time it went down. Earlier I posted the METARS bracketing the time the incident occurred. These show the wind as easterly and there is also a GNSS approach for RW09. I'm sure the reasons for that anomaly will come out in the AAIB report.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 8th Jun 2013 at 16:17.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pace
A lot of the route cause for these disagreements must lie with the lack of direction by the manufacturer.
The POH is the bible for operations but the manufacturer have been reluctant to give guidance on a piece of equipment which is standard fit.
All that is mentioned in the POH is engine failure. Fly a conventional forced landing to a suitable site and only if a suitable site does not exist CONSIDER the use of the chute.
The POH is the bible for operations but the manufacturer have been reluctant to give guidance on a piece of equipment which is standard fit.
All that is mentioned in the POH is engine failure. Fly a conventional forced landing to a suitable site and only if a suitable site does not exist CONSIDER the use of the chute.
Cirrus has been an advocate for safety and has provided guidance. In the current POH Revision A10, 9 May 2011, see Section 10, Safety Information, for 8 pages of guidance.
Furthermore, Section 3, Emergency Procedures, provides guidance for the use of CAPS where "CAPS is determined to be safer than continued flight and landing." CAPS guidance is provided under these emergency procedures: Engine Failure in Flight, Engine Power Loss, Inadvertent Spiral Dive During IMC Flight, Spins, Landing Emergencies, Ditching.
Seems you have an obsolete version in mind.
Cheers
Rick
The glide clear exemption for landing doesn't apply in Proon moral outrage land it would seem.
Parachutes were banned by the RFC in WW1. Some attitudes are seemingly slow to change
Parachutes were banned by the RFC in WW1. Some attitudes are seemingly slow to change
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The British low flying rules are more strict than elsewhere.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rick
This is new !! If so I am
Very pleased that Cirrus have finally done this !
Can anyone give a link to these Cirtus recommendations as I do not have a POH and took my own info from stuff published here!
But yes go with the Cirrus recommendations! Not some outside body
Pace
This is new !! If so I am
Very pleased that Cirrus have finally done this !
Can anyone give a link to these Cirtus recommendations as I do not have a POH and took my own info from stuff published here!
But yes go with the Cirrus recommendations! Not some outside body
Pace
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,635
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
The glide clear exemption for landing doesn't apply in PPRuNe moral outrage land it would seem.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pace
Can anyone give a link to these Cirtus recommendations as I do not have a POH and took my own info from stuff published here!
CIRRUS online POH
For the current SR22 POH revision A10:
http://servicecenters.cirrusdesign.c...72-001RA10.pdf
And for much more about training for the utilisation of CAPS, see
CAPS Training
Originally Posted by Pace
But yes go with the Cirrus recommendations! Not some outside body
That outside body, the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association (COPA) enjoys a very close and collaborative relationship with the Flight Standards group in Cirrus Aircraft. The advocacy of COPA members, and in particular the flight instructors at the Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program we run, were instrumental in convincing Cirrus to make substantial changes. Some of them appear in revision A10, more appear in the POH for the G5 models.
Our hope is that continued collaboration will result in even more changes to thwart the misinformation and misapplication of cautious wording in Cirrus documents. For instance, the maximum demonstrated airspeed during certification was 133 KIAS but actual deployments have happened at 168, 171, 187 and 190 KIAS with no damage to the parachute system and all aboard survived without injury (although the airframe had substantial damage, at least one of those three has been repaired and is flying again).
It's an interesting blend of engineering and psychology, this pilot training stuff.
Cheers
Rick
aka COPA Safety Liaison, CPPP Co-Chair, COPA Treasurer, and Cirrus owner with 3430 hours on the original cylinders of my 2001 SR22
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it was by mere chance that the aircraft caused no damage to innocent folk on the ground,
Last edited by thborchert; 8th Jun 2013 at 21:41.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been following this thread with great interest. I will be the first to admit that I have been a silent disbeliever for years of this uncontrolled parachute descent caper in the Cirrus.
Following recent events, my personal outlook has somewhat changed and for me, sdbeach and few other prominent posters have truly put this baby to bed.
It will be exceptionally hard to keep everyone happy with this methodology and revised way of thinking, but sometimes one just cannot keep everyone happy.
Chute happens! Safe flying everyone.
Following recent events, my personal outlook has somewhat changed and for me, sdbeach and few other prominent posters have truly put this baby to bed.
It will be exceptionally hard to keep everyone happy with this methodology and revised way of thinking, but sometimes one just cannot keep everyone happy.
Chute happens! Safe flying everyone.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,635
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
Quote:
it was by mere chance that the aircraft caused no damage to innocent folk on the ground,
And what else would it have been? And what a fine example that those chances are exceedingly good!
You guys are funny!
The SR-22 pilot who nearly ran into me today on his way to Leicester might have not found it so funny. Thankfully my lookout was better than his and although it was his responsibility to give way, he did not do so, presumably only because he hadn't seen my aircraft. I finally took avoiding action on his behalf, so he got to save his BRS 'chute for another day.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have to be thankful all those überpilots frequent pprune. I know of no other place with so many of them. Maybe you can tell us how to make more of you? But that would kind of ruin it, wouldn't it?
(Please tell me your transponder was on - almost all Cirrii have traffic detectors, another tech gimmick real pilots don't need. And yes, the rather obvious point I'm trying to make is that the aircraft type has zero connection to your experience)
(Please tell me your transponder was on - almost all Cirrii have traffic detectors, another tech gimmick real pilots don't need. And yes, the rather obvious point I'm trying to make is that the aircraft type has zero connection to your experience)
Last edited by thborchert; 8th Jun 2013 at 21:50.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonder if this pair of genius's attempted the chute pull??
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,635
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
My transponder was on, with mode C, as it always is. Also my TCAS was on, again, as it always is, glass cockpit. That is how I first realised an aircraft initially on a parallel track had levelled at my altitude, turned right towards me and was quite closing from my left, (aircraft blind side) at the same altitude.
I finally descended to avoid and he passed directly over me.
By the way, your posts are becoming unnecessarily confrontational. The rules of the forum say play the ball, not the player.
I finally descended to avoid and he passed directly over me.
By the way, your posts are becoming unnecessarily confrontational. The rules of the forum say play the ball, not the player.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 8th Jun 2013 at 22:27.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Crashed Cirrus Data Recorder Tells Aerobatic Tale
Wonder if this pair of genius's attempted the chute pull??
Crashed Cirrus Data Recorder Tells Aerobatic Tale
Wonder if this pair of genius's attempted the chute pull??
BTW I am a Cirrus pilot myself and strong advocate of the CAPS system.
My transponder was on, with mode C, as it always is. Also my TCAS was on, again, as it always is, glass cockpit. That is how I first realised an aircraft initially on a parallel track had levelled at my altitude, turned right towards me and was quite closing from my left, (aircraft blind side) at the same altitude.
I finally descended to avoid and he passed directly over me.
I finally descended to avoid and he passed directly over me.
)I suspect that many Cirrus drivers (I fly one myself and do have the Skywatch system fitted) are too used to flying airways and may have eyes inside the cockpit when flying VFR. I looked at my own logbook today and only 10% of my flying is VFR.
When I do fly VFR, I don't trust the Skywatch, get a traffic service if I can and religiously scan for other planes.
It's a good lesson for us all to learn: see and avoid, and get a traffic service if one is available.
Pace & Mad Jock
I suspect that there may not be as much between us as appears to be the case.
Pace: the thrust of your argument seems to be that pilots should not blindly pull the parachute if there is a possibility of gliding clear of any potential hazard on the ground.
Broadly, I agree with this: the point at issue is at what point do you pull the parachute? In other words, do you fly to some predetermined minimum and then pull, or do you fly to scene of the crash?
The basic limit, as expressed in the guidance notes for the use of the system, is a height of 2000 feet AGL. Given that there have been successful deployments at less than 500 feet, my own PERSONAL minimum would be 1000 feet: YMMV! (BTW this pull may well have been lower than that).
So, given a situation in which I have no confidence of being able to land the aircraft safely conventionally, I would try to glide clear of any built-up area until either it became clear I wasn't going to make it or untilI I hit 1000 feet (as an example on an approach that went badly wrong and I couldn't climb out to safety) and then pull the parachute: no, it's not ideal, but it's the best compromise!
Jock
You seem to be making two points:
Firstly, it is indispensable for pilots to get the maximum possible amount training and use it properly.
I completely agree with this and try to implement it myself. For what it's worth, this is one area where I disagree with what Rick Beach said in his presentation (so far the only one!): I have done spin training (not in a Cirrus!) and found it very useful. It is also worth making the point that, during the EASA certification process Cirrus aircraft were found to recover from spins with no problems.
Far too many accidents are caused by pilot all kinds of aircraft, not just Cirrus, getting themselves into situations that they are not qualified to deal with.
For my part, I have spent some time in a full motion Cirrus simulator dealing with emergencies: on a number of occasions, I have managed to "kill" myself trying to deal with them. This serves as a good illustration of the fact that you don't know what is going to happen until it happens!
The main lesson that I have learned from those sessions is how to integrate the use of the parachute system into the process of managing a number of different scenarios. In other words, it is not just a matter of: "see a warning light, pull the handle!" but much more question of assessing at what point do you need to pull the handle to save your life and being ready to pull it.
What I mean by this is that there comes a point in dealing with some emergency scenarios in which the light goes on in your head when you realise that you are not going to get out of it alive. At that point, provided it happens early enough, having a parachute available is something of a relief. Even in a SIM!
Secondly, I would summarise as: real pilots don't need no stinkin' parachutes!
Sorry, but I really don't agree: if I ever find myself in a situation I can't deal with, I want that red-handle available to me and, perhaps more importantly, to any passengers that I have in the plane with me.
A number of people posting here have said that we should be responsible for our own actions and take the consequences. That is fair enough: but why should that apply to our innocent passengers as well? If I screw up, should the death penalty apply to them too?
Please read this post in this positive spirit in which it is intended: we all want to enjoy flying and do it safely. In my opinion, the best way to do this is to combine technology, training, equipment and common sense in the best possible proportions.
YMMV!
By the way, if either of you find yourselves going to Las Vegas, I'll be happy to try to get you a special deal on a Cirrus SIM session there: then you can try the scenarios for yourself!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by maxred
Wonder if this pair of genius's attempted the chute pull??
Check out the link now, as the author has included my animation of the three aileron rolls. You'll see how the plane tumbles at the top of the fatal maneuver.
It's us, the pilots. Did I mention that the Cirrus is not approved for aerobatic maneuvers?
Cheers
Rick
aka COPA Safety Liaison, CPPP Co-Chair, COPA Treasurer, and Cirrus owner with 3430 hours on the original cylinders of my 2001 SR22
Rick
You are wasting your time, the "skygods" of pprune don't want to be confused by the facts, their world is binary.
Them = Greatest Pilot that ever lived who will never screw up
Cirrus Pilot = An incompetent boob who won't die like a man
You are wasting your time, the "skygods" of pprune don't want to be confused by the facts, their world is binary.
Them = Greatest Pilot that ever lived who will never screw up
Cirrus Pilot = An incompetent boob who won't die like a man
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Secondly, I would summarise as: real pilots don't need no stinkin' parachutes
That's not my view.
My view is very similar to having air bags in cars. But currently we have ford fiesta 1.1 drivers jumping into the old 944 turbo. Then just holding it together normally and then it gets icy but they still drive it like a ford fiesta.
As for the first point 100% and it all goes back to those lessons 3-13 of the ppl syllabus not being taught properly and a lot of the time made up airline ops are being taught for critical stages of flight which are inappropriate for the class of aircraft being flown.
Now those of you that post on pprune I think are in the high end of cirrus owners you take your machine seriously and you undertake to know your machine and also take continuation training. From what I can see you basically run it like a type rating for a larger aircraft. System reviews and also skills reviews how often you do that I don't know. But you seem to take pride in knowing about your machine and its capabilities.
Now the other end of the spectrum is what all the discussion is about and to be honest it is a huge discussion at the moment with the larger machines as well. Its the Liveware and software integration of an automated high information flight deck and the lose of manual skills and SA while letting the machine do all the work. (Liveware and software are referring to the SHELL model if you google CRM SHELL model)
In reality those machines of yours are way more "advanced" both systems interaction wise and flight deck wise than most airliners. Both PACE and myself are captains on quite old basic machines we live and work on our skill set which keeps things safe but we have had a fair share of oh
moments and survived. But you don't carry the redundancy that we do. I do know a Q400 Captain that fly's both cirrus and his work machine and he has said that the cirrus has more features than his work machine. To which I replied "what you mean it doesn't go tech every other sector" I fly two different classes of machine one that's EFIS and autopilot and one thats steam and no AP both regional TP's. My skills and SA are by far higher when flying the Steam TP. The managed EFIS cockpit needs a completely different skill set to the manual aircraft. I must admit I have a tendency to revert to steam mode if the automatics give me any nonsense. But I do have quite developed manual IR skills, developed flying in the all pants wx Scotland can throw at you. This was frowned apon for years, this is now changing in the airline world with every AOC in Europe now having to define the policy for keeping pilots manual skills current.
This currency and lack of knowledge isn't limited to just the GA world on certain types of aircraft there have been several high profile cases in the commercial world where pilots have pulled instead of relaxed the back pressure on the controls to deal with a stall.
And then we have other high profile cases when the pilot stuck it in the river and got rid of the drag flap and made the runway and I might add gain the shortest landing at Heathrow record when all survived.
If by these discussion here we motivate owners to get their fingers out and develop themselves and there skills and decrease the risk of requiring the use of their chute the debates have been worth it.
But personally the amount of risk which has been negated by carrying the chute isn't worth it for me for the cost. If I had one it wouldn't change my risk assessments and go, no go decision or what's an acceptable flight profile for a SEP.
Maybe making it a type rating would be the way forward. To first of all ensure that the standard of instruction is fit for purpose and also that the pilots are fit for purpose.
The only down side is that EASA isn't fit for purpose and wouldn't actually implement something which is practical, cost effective and fit for purpose.
Last edited by mad_jock; 9th Jun 2013 at 06:23.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No no no no no !!!!!!!!!!!
NO to another bit of EASA paperwork, the Cirrus is not some wonder fast mega plane it is an SEP and should be treated as such, a type rating is totaly unnecessary.
The only difference is that the ballistic chute gives you more options and the decision on when to use it needs to be taken on the ground long before you fly the aircraft having carefully digested the advice from Cirrus.
The only difference is that the ballistic chute gives you more options and the decision on when to use it needs to be taken on the ground long before you fly the aircraft having carefully digested the advice from Cirrus.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way, your posts are becoming unnecessarily confrontational. The rules of the forum say play the ball, not the player.
And you might have made the same remark when the regulars became much more than just "confrontational", hundreds of posts back. But I guess you'll consider this another confrontational post...