When To Pull The Chute

[FastEddieB]

One Cirrus CAPS pull failed to deploy properly, and the plane was landed with the still furled chute trailing behind.

 

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=da260970-3974-400f-95b1-c095ab971053

 

It was a repacked chute. I don't recall if the proximate cause was ever determined.

[AZAV8OR]

One Cirrus CAPS pull failed to deploy properly, and the plane was landed with the still furled chute trailing behind.

 

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=da260970-3974-400f-95b1-c095ab971053

 

It was a repacked chute. I don't recall if the proximate cause was ever determined.

The NTSB has still not released info on the incident. I spoke with the pilot at length and needed a spatula to pry myself off of my chair when he was done telling me all.

[Doug G.]

I am assuming the she was replaced free of charge - by the company that repacked it the first time? Wouldn't that be reassuring? :-/

[FlyingMonkey]

I am assuming the she was replaced free of charge - by the company that repacked it the first time? Wouldn't that be reassuring? :-/

 

I believe BRS does all the repacks at the factory.

[AZAV8OR]

I am assuming the she was replaced free of charge - by the company that repacked it the first time? Wouldn't that be reassuring? :-/

That makes the assumption that it was caused by the shop that re-packed the chute. Premature, at best.

[Dan Kent]

My POV is that the chute is installed properly and has been engineered and installed to operate as documented so I expect the chute to work when I pull the handle.  If I expected otherwise, I wouldn't have the chute in the first place  

 

Also, I'm not so sure one is in complete control if you don't pull the chute.  You are somewhat limited in your choices of landing and you have no idea about the surface you've selected until it's too late to make a change.  My one engine out dead stick landing is a pretty good example.  My choice at 6000' looked great, at 1000' looked good, at 50' I told the controller "It doesn't look too hospitable down here".

 

In the end, it is more important to have thought through the likely scenarios and decide on your course of action then stick to them in the unlikely event you'll need to execute the plan.

 

Thanks Dave. Also, part of my issue is that my training did not include the chute as an option. I mean it was discussed, but when out flying when the throttle was pulled to idle, it was always looking for a spot to land and never "pull the chute" instead.

[Doug G.]

It would be great to have a full motion simulator for these scenarios. Even just to know what to expect when the rocket fires.

I know of a 30' wide runway I could use for "landing on a road" practice. Don't think I would want to do it with much crosswind though. Which makes me think twice about a road landing with a non running engine, cars on the road and unseen posts, signs, mailboxes, etc. and non aligned winds.

[coppercity]

My wife and I have been teaching in our CT and Cirrus for a number of years now and although we still focus a good bit of training on engine out practice and various emergency/abnormal procedures we try to push the chute. We want our students to always consider it as an option, maybe not the only option but one to think of first and reconsider during the emergency. There are cases when the chute should come out right away, other times not. For engine out we train, no runway to land on, pull the chute especially for our inexperienced student pilots. No runway could mean a runway behind you but inaccessible due to altitude, our just lack of ability or confidence to make it. Does the chute mean we don't train to the same standards...no. does it mean we give up...no, it's another tool to save lives and in the end that's the most important thing to consider. A macho attitude that I can save it leads to delayed consideration of a decision that can save you and your passenger. Consider that life saving option first. If your skill level, conditions, environment, brain capacity, and remaining aircraft systems can meet or exceed the outcome of the chute then reconsider.

[Anticept]

I believe BRS does all the repacks at the factory.

Any certificated parachute repacker with a round parachute rating can repack a BRS chute. BRS will even send them the instructions.

[Andy]

"A macho attitude that I can save it leads to delayed consideration of a decision that can save you and your passenger. Consider that life saving option first."---Really good words.  When I was in the fleet, I was a NATOPS instructor toward the end of my tour; and we would construct training scenarios designed to test whether an aircrew would stay too long with an aircraft since that tended to be one of the major factors driving fatalities surrounding ejections.  Like the gent talking earlier about deploying the chute too soon on take off in the Cirrus illustrated, the chute can make a difference if deployed in its envelope but won't if deployed outside it.

 

All the discussion on this subject and on the results of off-field landings is very helpful; I probably am more likely to use it for a forced landing off-airport than I was.  That said, when I developed emergency procedures for myself and my students I threw out conventional ditching techniques in favor of the chute and for incapacitated pilot (pinch hitter) scenarios.  The focus there became teaching the other person how to stabilize the airplane if possible, call for help, navigate to an airport, and deploy the chute...or deploy the chute right away if the airplane was out of control. (My reasoning for that was it was safer than trying to teach a non-pilot to land..especially in the wind...and would get the pilot having serious problems to medical help sooner and without further injury from a crash.)

[FlyingMonkey]

Another consideration is that the chute/no chute decision is not really just one decision, it's a process based on evolving conditions.  If I'm at 3500ft (where I often cruise in the local area, about 2500ft AGL) and I lose an engine, I'm going to say "should I use the chute", but the immediate answer is going to almost certainly be "not yet."  I'll pitch for best glide and find the best local landing spot.  As I'm making my approach to the landing, I'm going to constantly be asking myself "how is this looking now?".  If the answer goes from "good" to "not so good" the chute is going to become the likely answer.  If everything goes perfectly and the chosen landing zone looks just as good from 400ft AGL as it did from 2000ft AGL, and my glide path looks great, then I will probably proceed with landing.

 

Don't make a decision and then forget about it...keep continuously asking what the best option is for you based on your skill set, conditions, altitude, and landing zone.  

[FastEddieB]

A thread with the same name was begun in 2013, and contains good info.

 

For those new to the forum, here is an account I posted there:

 

COPA post, 9/2/2006:

 

Last Saturday was the nice little fly-in into Kennesaw, GA.

 

Part of the “hook” was a chance to try out the SimTrain Cirrus simulator nearby.

 

While my basic flying skills weren’t too bad, I sort of blew two emergency scenarios, though the first was at least survivable.

 

Scenario 1

 

Right after takeoff, it became apparent the “plane” was no longer climbing. The good news is that I decreased pitch enough to keep flying and managed to land on the remaining runway.

 

The bad news is that the instructor (Joe Davis) had failed the oil pressure at the beginning of the takeoff roll, and I hadn’t noticed it.

 

My bad, and no excuses, but...

 

...I normally take off with the Emax screen up. Because I wasn’t using my personalized checklist, I did not have the Emax screen displayed. I generally monitor the climb of EGTs, the CHTs and the RPM. I don’t know that I generally scan the other gauges, though now I’ll probably start. I still may have seen the red “abnormal” oil pressure display, but since I missed the “Oil” annunciator, I’m not 100% sure of that, either.

 

Scenario 2

 

At some point in the flight, at about 4,000’, the plane entered what seemed to be a spin. I pushed the stick forward, determined the direction of rotation and pushed opposite rudder. I think I retarded the throttle as well. I seemed to be making some progress (I thought) when someone in the peanut gallery said “chute?”. Seemed like a plan and I reached up for the handle, but it was blocked by the cover. I spent a second or two fumbling with the tiny pull-tab on the cover, and then hit the ground. Yikes.

 

Turns out the left wing had departed and the “spin” was unrecoverable.

 

This was a real eye-opener to me. I had wondered why the NY pilots who spun never pulled the chute and was certain I would have. Now I’m not so sure.

 

Observations:

 

1) Once the plane started to “spin” the only term I can think of is “task fixation”. I was 100% wrapped up in recovering from the spin. I’ve done hundreds of spins in the past and managed to recover from each and every one, so why not this one?

 

Warren Zevon (R.I.P.) sang “You’re a whole ‘nother person when you’re scared”. Even in a simulation this was pretty intense and the amount of fixation was remarkable. Kind of like tunnel vision with blinders to any other task.

 

2) IMHO, having the CAPS cover in place could have fatal consequences. In this case, I don’t care what the POH says (and that means something coming from me!). If the cover is a required placard, maybe it could be Velcro’d to the ceiling next to the handle (I think Mike has the “Pull Procedure” laminated in the handle’s recess). Turns out in my scenario I also had the pin in place - again, I blame this on not having my own checklist which I’m very used to. Still, it shows poor use of the checklist which was provided.

 

3) I thought Mike R’s “BAM-touch head-grab handle” exercise was cute but a bit over-the-top. I take it back, and will practice it myself in the future.

 

Similarly, I was impressed when Jeff Seymore briefed the takeoff by showing, on the backup altimeter, the altitude where he would start considering the ‘chute and no longer commit to a straight ahead landing if the engine failed. Again, a good idea which I may incorporate into my own routine.

 

Anyway, I learned a lot in a very short time (15 minutes?) and plan on going back, next time on my own dime. I figure if I go every other month and shoot at least 3 approaches and do some holds/intercepts, at least I’ll stay current. And I’m sure they have more of these wicked little scenarios I can screw up!

 

Link to This Post | Quick Reply

[Ed Cesnalis]

• Night - In general I agree night means pull, unless you can see well enough to land and then you might decide.

• Water - The question here is impacting on the belly without much energy absorption from the gear.  This might cause a back injury. 

Mid Air - I would change this to loss of control.  I know people that have landed after a mid-air with no injuries.

[Andy]

For the ditching scenario, I'd worry a lot less about back injury than I would about being trapped in the airplane and drowning. The gear works against you in a ditching; it increases the odds of flipping the aircraft.   If, during a "fly-on" ditch, the airplane doesn't flip over or dig in, you can probably get out of it fairly easily, assuming it floats for some length of time and the actual impact doesn't leave you stunned.  If the airplane flips or digs in, especially if the cockpit fills quickly with water, you now have the problem of getting out compounded with possible disorientation.  I've been through the Dilbert Dunker several times, but not many people get the luxury of that kind of training.  (Maybe if the airplane flips, you get lucky and it pops the canopy out, but I think that is somewhat unlikely considering the bonded nature of the aircraft.  Then, again, a 2 ounce chimney swift punched a 3 inch hole in my windscreen, so there is some possibility it might.)

[FlyingMonkey]

For water I'd probably use the chute and crack open the doors before impact.

[Ed Cesnalis]

http://www.newson6.com/story/26319363/plane-lands-in-apache-street-near-tia

[Doug G.]

Great ending, but if the car had been in a slightly different position the outcome might not have been so good. Sounds like there was no option.

[FlyingMonkey]

He also never got more than 100 feet off the ground...landing was his only option...

 

If there were not a decent landing option, I'd pull the chute at 100 feet and pull the speed back to just above stall to maximize time in the air to give the chute time to inflate.  Worst case scenario, you mush into the ground at just above stall speed, which is your best non-chute option anyway if there is not a viable landing site.  If the chute inflates in time that just cushions the blow even more.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Andy,

 

The faster the plane  (up to a point) the faster the chute inflation. Your chute should deploy quicker at 90 verses 45. You need full inflation, cord stretch and then time to slow. This has been shown in videos since about 1983.

[FlyingMonkey]

Hi Andy,

 

The faster the plane  (up to a point) the faster the chute inflation. Your chute should deploy quicker at 90 verses 45. You need full inflation, cord stretch and then time to slow. This has been shown in videos since about 1983.

I get that...but I'm thinking at 100ft the time might be more important than the speed. I may be wrong about that, but if I'm that close to the ground I don't want to be speeding up since I can only do that with no power by diving. I'd be relying on the slow speed to mitigate the crash, the chute is just a drag chute to assist in slowing down at that point.

[WmInce]

I get that...but I'm thinking at 100ft the time might be more important than the speed. I may be wrong about that, but if I'm that close to the ground I don't want to be speeding up since I can only do that with no power by diving. I'd be relying on the slow speed to mitigate the crash, the chute is just a drag chute to assist in slowing down at that point.

Andy,

 

I have doubts as to whether 100' is enough altitude to activate, fully deploy and slow vertical decent to a survivable rate.

[AZAV8OR]

"Similarly, I was impressed when Jeff Seymore briefed the takeoff by showing, on the backup altimeter, the altitude where he would start considering the ‘chute and no longer commit to a straight ahead landing if the engine failed. Again, a good idea which I may incorporate into my own routine."

 

Until my CT, I flew 6 pack panels. I always installed a simple altitude bug available from Sporty's. I primarily used it for decision height for IFR approaches, but it worked great for setting the 500AGL chute-viable callout on the way up. Now I have two nice big 10" panels and have lost that ability. I can set an altitide alert in SkyView, but she calls out "approaching altitude" and "leaving altitude" when I'm +/- 100'. That drove me nuts, so I silenced it. Does  anyone have an SOP for this?

 

[AZAV8OR]

For water I'd probably use the chute and crack open the doors before impact.

FWIW, the common wisdom in the Cirrus world is to leave the doors secured, as they are an important part of maintaining cabin structural integrity. That's why there's a crash hammer in the console; if the doors are jammed after landing under chute, bang your way out!

 

Looking at how our CTs are constructed, I tend to think the same applies for us.

 

No hammer required.

 

[AZAV8OR]

"If there were not a decent landing option, I'd pull the chute at 100 feet and pull the speed back to just above stall to maximize time in the air to give the chute time to inflate.  Worst case scenario, you mush into the ground at just above stall speed, which is your best non-chute option anyway if there is not a viable landing site.  If the chute inflates in time that just cushions the blow even more."

 

I've been pondering this issue as well. The concern when I flew my Cirrus was that <500AGL doesn't give enough time for the entire deployment sequence to complete. If you pulled below that, you might be in the nose down part of the pendulum (and accelerating!) when you hit. On the balance, it seemed that an under-control, full-stall landing would hurt less than a no-control nose dive into terra firma.

 

With the CT's 250AGL BRS-viable altitude and it's relatively low weight and kinetic energy, I'm wondering if the same applies. IOW, below 250AGL, do we have a drag chute that will slow down the impact even if not fully deployed or do we face the same potential nose-splat that Cirrus drivers do in this scenario?

 

[FlyingMonkey]

Andy,

 

I have doubts as to whether 100' is enough altitude to activate, fully deploy and slow vertical decent to a survivable rate.

So do I, which is why my plan included slowing the plane without the chute, and just using the chute as a drag chute to give whatever drag it can to help us slow into the crash. Remember The scenario I suggested is one with no good landing site. There is going to be a crash, the only question is how slow we can get first.