FlyingMonkey Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 A chute pull is also a high risk maneuver. Not sure in this case which course carried more risk, since I wasn't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 Given similar circumstances I would be more prone to pull when flying a Cirrus than a CT. I have the sense that the CT is less prone to fatalities due to the lower kinetic energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 Given similar circumstances I would be more prone to pull when flying a Cirrus than a CT. I have the sense that the CT is less prone to fatalities due to the lower kinetic energy. And better wing tank design, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted November 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 A chute pull is also a high risk maneuver. Not sure in this case which course carried more risk, since I wasn't there. This will clearly be a matter of opinion but the statistics on BRS pulls has shown them to be very LOW risk maneuvers. I'll post a link as to the Cirrus experiences later. True, a CT has much lower energy to deal with than a Cirrus, but does anyone deny that repeated attempts to land an ice carrying CT at a very high speed is a risky maneuver? I was not there but mocfly was and I think he admits to the riskiness of his maneuvering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted November 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 Back in front of a real computer... …here's that link: I've posted it before and its kinda long and can be kinda dry but I think anyone flying a BRS-equipped plane owes it to themselves to watch at least once. Again, many Cirrus pilots are dead today, along with some passengers, who would have been alive had they pulled. So far, the number of Cirrus pilots killed because they elected to pull is still zero, as long as the pull was made within design parameters. And stipulated that a Cirrus carries more energy. Still, full flap stall speed on an SR22 is about 60k, so while a significant difference, its hardly "order of magnitude" territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 And stipulated that a Cirrus carries more energy. Still, full flap stall speed on an SR22 is about 60k, so while a significant difference, its hardly "order of magnitude" territory. 60k doesn't indicate the energy difference. You need to multiply the 60kts by the aircraft weight plus you might have up to 300hp more available if the throttle isn't closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted November 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 Stipulated. A Cirrus carries more weight and more energy, and the chances of an off-airport landing leading to a fatal are much higher than in a CT landed at or near stall speed. But many chute pulls involve things like pilot disorientation, leading to graveyard spirals, or stall/spin, which would be comparable, if not identical, whether you plane weighed 1,320 or 3,400 lbs. Oh, and mocfly, in at least this case, said his plane was "stalling" at 80k, so I assume he was approaching faster than that and planting the plane at a pretty high speed. That's where the high risk came in. If I have any details wrong, I hope he'll correct me. My point is just that, had he come to grief on any one of the approaches and landings, I think we would have been justified in hypothesizing the outcome had he just pulled the chute. I'm glad it worked out for him. Really. I just don't want people coming away from this thinking "If I ever get loaded with ice I'll land her whatever it takes - it worked for mocfly, it'll work for me". It might, it might not, but the chute works virtually every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 I keep questioning your final statement, in this case: ... But many chute pulls involve things like pilot disorientation, leading to graveyard spirals, or stall/spin, which would be comparable, if not identical, whether you plane weighed 1,320 or 3,400 lbs. You may be correct but I think you are assuming not concluding from a real basis. If everything worked as engineered and both designs allowed the gear to take the impact at the same vertical speed then I would agree, the Cirrus might even have the edge. But there have been few CT pulls to analyze so far and the Cirrus pulls having to be within design parameters seems to be a big consideration too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 I agree that the outcomes for BRS have been very good when used inside the deployment envelope. But any mechanical device maintained by humans can fail, and one the chute is pulled you are a passenger with no control. You don't get to decide if you are going to come down through power lines, into a semi-frozen lake, or what have you. In terms of catastrophic emergency procedures, low risk; in terms of overall airplane procedures, I'd say high risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 With the ice laden airplane there are other things to consider too. I realize the the ice changes the shape of the airfoil, but it also increases weight. If the airplane was to the point of needing to fly at 80 instead of 60 then how much extra weight was it carrying? How would the chute react to the added weight? Would the ice build up cause the chute to not deploy propperly? These are all things that need to be considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3flyer Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 I think Eddie was just trying to elevate the discussion to determine if we would include pulling the BRS as an option in a similar situation. Given the rough numbers, mocfly's kinetic energy was quadrupled from normal (energy is proportional to the square of velocity), then add in a frozen runway that you're now doing 80kts on versus 40 kts which increases the risk of losing control and you probably don't have effective/predictive braking. Faced with a similar situation, consideration of pulling the chute makes sense. One would need to throw in other considerations (pilot skill, surrounding terrain, runway, wind, current weather, co-pilot experience, etc) to make the final decision, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 I appreciate Eddie bringing it up. I'm not convinced that If I'm too energy heavy to land that I'm not too heavy to deploy successfully. What happens when the rocket impacts the ice covering the exit panel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mocfly Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 Let me add something that I found interesting. Landing at 90knots indicated, the plane felt incredibly stable once the mains were on. I remember holding off the nose until the readout was 50knots. Then it still took almost another 2000+ feet to come to a complete stop. Breaking was hard but not full as to avoid any other problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 Good on you for getting it down safely, Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted November 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 Good on you for getting it down safely, Chris. Ditto! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mocfly Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 Thank you for that. It was the first bad decision I made in over 20 years of flying, and hopefully will be the last. I learned many lessons reviewing the chain of events that led all the way up to stopping the plane on the end of the runway. The way the plane performed is a testament to the aircraft and it's design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.