Cirrus training

[MauleSkinner]

I was just down at a SimTrain facility in Atlanta to help evaluate their Cirrus simulator and one of the instructors there mentioned the recommendation was that pulling the chute was preferred to an off-airport landing. The thinking being it is better to hit more or less straight down at 30 knots than to hit moving forward at 60 or 70. (Significantly less energy involved.)

I'm not so sure about the logic of that...yes, there's less energy involved, but in an off-airport landing the energy can be dissippated over more distance. 60 or 70 knots over 50 yards seems to be far fewer g's than hitting the ground at 30 and stopping RIGHT NOW under the parachute.

My takeaway from our conversation was that if something bad happens to the airplane (engine failure, it starts flying weird, you get covered in ice, etc...), pull the chute while you still have time and let the insurance company deal with it. That's a big leap from my initial training in the thing.

I can see it for the "starts flying wierd", or "covered in ice" scenarios...if you have really serious doubts about the aerodynamic capabilities (or structural, for that matter) of the airplane, the chute would definitely be a good option.

Fly safe!

David

 

[woutlaw]

I'm not so sure about the logic of that...yes, there's less energy involved, but in an off-airport landing the energy can be dissippated over more distance. 60 or 70 knots over 50 yards seems to be far fewer g's than hitting the ground at 30 and stopping RIGHT NOW under the parachute.

I can see it for the "starts flying wierd", or "covered in ice" scenarios...if you have really serious doubts about the aerodynamic capabilities (or structural, for that matter) of the airplane, the chute would definitely be a good option.

Fly safe!

David

Good point on dissipating the energy over a greater distance. I'm a pilot, not an engineer. <grin>

I guess what the guy was talking about was that the airplane is designed to safely dissipate the loads when landing (crashing?) under the chute.

To follow up, I was talking with a CSIP pal of mine yesterday while doing some approaches in an SR-22 and his recommndation was to pull the chute in an engine-out scenario instead of attempting an off-airport landing.

Nosing over, not making the field, hitting wires, etc... were some of the concerns. We fly in Minnesota, which is pretty darn flat and open, and his plan of action is to pull the chute if the engine fails. Said he'd rather pull the chute while he had the chance than to be upside down and on fire in a field wishing he'd pulled the handle.

Fair enough I guess.

There also is apparently some consensus among the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association folk that pulling the chute even at low-altitudes (ie, an engine failure at 300 feet on takeoff) is the way to go.

The thinking being that even a partially deployed chute is going to slow you down. It's an interesting thought.

I'm still mulling that one over because of the pitch up/pitch down moment when the chute deploys. I'd be worried about hitting in a bad attitude (nose down in particular) while the airplane was still stabilizing under the chute.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Well, pulling the chute IS a very personal decision, and needs to be made based on a lot of factors, including not only the pilots skills, but also what he's comfortable with...I've found that if you're not comfortable doing something, it can become unsafe in a hurry.

Never having flown a Cirrus, I can't speak for its engine-out landing characteristics. I guess I've just made enough off-airport landings that I'm more comfortable with the thought than lots of people.

Fly safe!

David

 

[CL600Pilot]

Nosing over, not making the field, hitting wires, etc... were some of the concerns.

Legitimate concerns I guess but in which scenario would you have more control of where the airplane ends up? I don't know anything about parachutes and the ability to 'steer'(for lack of better term) them but it seems to me that if the structure and flight controls are intact and you can control the aircraft you'd actually have a greater chance of hitting wires, or other things you don't want to, under the chute.

Interesting discussion.

 

[Huggyu2]

For those that have gone through the Cirrus training, was it ever discussed whether it would be effective, should you be too low to deploy the chute normally, to deploy it in the flare to that it ends up acting like a drag chute? Will that work in creating a very, very short landing roll?

 

[ackattacker]

For those that have gone through the Cirrus training, was it ever discussed whether it would be effective, should you be too low to deploy the chute normally, to deploy it in the flare to that it ends up acting like a drag chute? Will that work in creating a very, very short landing roll?

Probably wouldn't do s**t. Which is a good thing, cause the only thing it could do at that point would be lift you up and slam you back down (probably on your tail or back). It fires up, not back. Picture a parasailer.

 

[Waldom]

Other issues aside, am I correct in thinking that deploying the ballistic parachute renders the airframe a total loss even before the airplane lands under the deployed canopy?

 

[Huggyu2]

I wouldn't think so: it just blows a hole through a plastic covering.

 

[JediNein]

I am a member of CSIP.

Pulling the chute doesn't necessarily destroy the aircraft. Engine, prop, landing gear, and some cosmetic patching and the aircraft is good to go. There are two Cirrus currently flying that have been through parachute pulls.

The shift in thinking from higher to lower on altitudes for deployment is NTSB driven. Cirrus will not publish actual numbers for where the parachute is expected to be better than an off-airport landing as they simply don't know. The NTSB has come in to both the owner organization and several individual operators suggesting that the chute should be the first option as low as when there is no runway remaining. Some at Cirrus have suggested the drogue chute effect, again, they don't have it in writing.

The crash investigators have found the same thing with the Cirrus as they do in the military. If it is an aircraft problem, the pilots have no problem pulling the chute. If it’s a pilot-induced problem, then there is a very slim chance that the pilot will pull the chute. There have even been accidents with the parachute pin found still in place.

In absence of written guidance from Cirrus, I teach my clients they have a choice to make should the engine quit after liftoff and with no runway remaining. They make this decision on the ground before departure as part of their takeoff briefing. They train to put the bleeping nose down if the engine quits. Then, they do whatever they decided – either landing straight ahead or pulling the chute. In a way it is like multiengine training, they have to make a decision, and the choices are not attractive. However, the choices are better than stalling and spinning in.

I teach my clients to avoid thunderstorms, known icing, and a whole bunch of other problems. Most of them have a NJ card or their own corporate jet, so they don't need to fly beyond the limits of their personal aircraft.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[MauleSkinner]

In absence of written guidance from Cirrus, I teach my clients they have a choice to make should the engine quit after liftoff and with no runway remaining. They make this decision on the ground before departure as part of their takeoff briefing. They train to put the bleeping nose down if the engine quits. Then, they do whatever they decided – either landing straight ahead or pulling the chute. In a way it is like multiengine training, they have to make a decision, and the choices are not attractive. However, the choices are better than stalling and spinning in.

Quite honestly, as it should be for any aircraft...If you have a plan in place ahead of time, a successful outcome is much more likely than if you figure it out "on the fly".

Fly safe!

David