[defcribed]

I see (and enjoy) both sides.

I like the flying that @johnm describes. I like the sense of mission, of managing the aircraft from A to B. I enjoy instrument flight, particularly approaches, and enjoy going into the bigger airports where I can. I like a trip, one that is not just about the flying but which happens because I (or we) want to get to the destination for some reason, even if just a short holiday. It's probably on a smaller scale than what @johnm does, because the TB10 is not as capable as the TB20 and I don't have a full IR.

Equally I enjoy getting aloft with no particular purpose and bimbling around, often at fairly low level and often for the sole purpose of looking at the landscape. The TB10 is not the tool for this though, so I use the Vagabond.

[sdbeach]

Taken from the report:-

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv ... 07-018.pdf

... Witness marks on the upper part of the rocket were consistent with the pick-up collar having initially jammed on the upper part of the rocket casing.

Within 12 weeks of that accident in 2007, Cirrus engineering teams determined the cause of mis-aligned pickup collar and instituted design changes to eliminate the issue. The FAA proceeded with an Airworthiness Directive to replace the pickup collar in all aircraft at the time. Any Cirrus flying today in an airworthy condition has that improved design of the pickup collar.

As JonZarno posted, the low altitude deployment made a bad situation worse. Attempting to land on a busy highway was abandoned in favor of diverting to a sloped shoulder of the highway then activating CAPS at a height estimated at 120 feet, well below the known loss of altitude of 400 feet in level flight. Any of the three options at that time were troublesome: 1) land on an occupied highway, 2) land on sloped shoulder with trees, 3) deploy CAPS at very low altitude. This and several similar instances of decisions to deploy CAPS very low to the ground prompted a training intervention to encourage a 2,000-foot decision height -- if you do not have a safe landing assured on a runway, then activate CAPS with enough altitude to fully deploy and land with minimal energy.

It appears that the scenario at Colshot involved a CAPS deployment with sufficient altitude to allow the occupants to egress without injury.

Cheers
Rick

[Miscellaneous]

This and several similar instances of decisions to deploy CAPS very low to the ground prompted a training intervention to encourage a 2,000-foot decision height -- if you do not have a safe landing assured on a runway, then activate CAPS with enough altitude to fully deploy and land with minimal energy.

I generally avoid comment on this regular debate. However, I'm motivated to comment on a decision height of 2000' being recommended. Does this not merely exacerbate the situation and support critics concerns? It's more or less impossible to assess unknown terrain as suitable for landing at 2000', therefore the recommendation 100% of the time has to be to use BRS?

In which case it cannot really be seen as an additional safety option.

[sdbeach]

This and several similar instances of decisions to deploy CAPS very low to the ground prompted a training intervention to encourage a 2,000-foot decision height -- if you do not have a safe landing assured on a runway, then activate CAPS with enough altitude to fully deploy and land with minimal energy.

I generally avoid comment on this regular debate. However, I'm motivated to comment on a decision height of 2000' being recommended. Does this not merely exacerbate the situation and support critics concerns? It's more or less impossible to assess unknown terrain as suitable for landing at 2000', therefore the recommendation 100% of the time has to be to use BRS?

In which case it cannot really be seen as an additional safety option.

Seems that if you fly a Cirrus, then the critics will have their say without regard to the situation. So, our position is that you ignore the critics, invest in good scenario-based training, adapt the best practices to your flying, and enjoy the safety features of your Cirrus.

As for 2,000 feet turning into a 100% recommendation to use the BRS parachute, yup! If you don't have a runway landing assured, then you risk a bad outcome in a Cirrus, largely due to high-energy impact forces found in several fatal Cirrus off-airport landing attempts. In a descent, you will use up precious altitude attempting an off-airport landing. So, don't.

As told by Boris Popov, the inventor of the ballistic recovery parachute system, "Why die with a perfectly good parachute behind you?"

Cheers
Rick

[Miscellaneous]

@sdbeach many thanks Rick. That certainly is crystal clear.

[Bill McCarthy]

Did the occupants at Calshot get out before the aircraft turned over. If not, they were bliddy lucky in such shallow water. Are insurance premiums higher for the Cirrus since the recommended emergency actions are to deploy the ‘chute rather than make a landing say, in a perfectly good area.

[sdbeach]

Are insurance premiums higher for the Cirrus since the recommended emergency actions are to deploy the ‘chute rather than make a landing say, in a perfectly good area.

Insurance brokers report that premiums for Cirrus aircraft are apparently in line with other high-performance single-engine aircraft.

Insurance underwriters encourage the use of CAPS. As one VP told me, "Pull CAPS! I would rather keep you as a customer rather than deal with your estate." Liability and medical expenses often outstrip repair expenses.

Cheers
Rick

[G-JWTP]

I remember David Cockcroft, now LAA chief coach, once telling me that

"the moment you commit yourself to a forced landing your aircraft belongs to the insurance company. Do what ever you have to do to avoid injury to you, passengers and 3rd parties.
Because however you look at it , even if your pride and joy is now in 3000 bits in a large field, if no one has been hurt it's a good forced landing. It might have gone better, but, it could have been an awful lot worse!"

It changed the way I look at aircraft incidents.

And the way I'll fly.

G-JWTP

[Rob L]

………..at how the majesty of our planet from close up has so little attraction

@Miscellaneous If I want to get up close and personal with planet Earth I walk or ski

I do that too Johnm (apart from the skiing bit...tried it twice but feared broken limbs, and it was cold and slippery!)

Like Misc, I care to see our planet from relatively low level above the surface...I like to see the contours, the details, the colour of the foliage and the history of human interaction with our landscape. A few years ago I was part of a three-ship Taylorcraft boy's trip to Scotland & back. Crossing Yorkshire, we all remarked upon the dry-stone walls between each little field which had been hand-made many years ago. The small details can get lost by only flying high; sometimes a combination of both sees us appreciate everything.

Just my opinion, of course!

[Miscellaneous]

Funnily enough @Rob L I had you in mind when posting on this thread. I know of some of the flying you do here in the UK and I thoroughly enjoy your US adventures which combine the being close and personal with travelling across country. Those trips really do appeal.

[Sooty25]

Are insurance premiums higher for the Cirrus since the recommended emergency actions are to deploy the ‘chute rather than make a landing say, in a perfectly good area.

Insurance brokers report that premiums for Cirrus aircraft are apparently in line with other high-performance single-engine aircraft.

Insurance underwriters encourage the use of CAPS. As one VP told me, "Pull CAPS! I would rather keep you as a customer rather than deal with your estate." Liability and medical expenses often outstrip repair expenses.

Cheers
Rick

Not so sure they'll be so chirpy should one drop into the path of a coach load of Cambridge graduates trundling up the M11!

[Rob L]

Funnily enough @Rob L I had you in mind when posting on this thread. I know of some of the flying you do here in the UK and I thoroughly enjoy your US adventures which combine the being close and personal with travelling across country. Those trips really do appeal.

I guess we have both been guilty of thread drift (from the original poster)

I hereby apologise to Johnnybegood who started this thread with good intentions. But it's been good to reminisce, Misc

Rob

[dangerous pete]

When a ballistic chute is deployed, the aircraft is then scrap. The chute cables rip out from under the skin of the aircraft and wreck it . The highish G landing must also do things to the airframe. If you ever have to approach a crashed Cirrus where the chute hasn't deployed, be aware that if it does go off. some of the cables are around the cockpit area and buried in the skin, and if you are half in and out of the cockpit you will be injured.

[Miscellaneous]

I guess we have both been guilty of thread drift (from the original poster)

I was taking the view @JonEBgood's message had been read and understood and bringing it back to flying rather than quibbling about BRS, again, was a good thing.

However I did learn the recommendation is always pull with a minimum height of 2000'.

[sdbeach]

When a ballistic chute is deployed, the aircraft is then scrap. The chute cables rip out from under the skin of the aircraft and wreck it . The highish G landing must also do things to the airframe. If you ever have to approach a crashed Cirrus where the chute hasn't deployed, be aware that if it does go off. some of the cables are around the cockpit area and buried in the skin, and if you are half in and out of the cockpit you will be injured.

Good grief! Such a fictional tale of woe...

After a CAPS landing, the aircraft is not then scrap. More than 1/3 of all CAPS deployments were repaired and flew again. Over 30 of 96 survivable deployments with more awaiting repairs. The channels for the risers are cosmetic and easily repaired. The airframes are carefully inspected, measured and engineered designs are provided to make structural repairs. Actually, the structural integrity of the cockpit area is rarely compromised, which helps avoid injury to the occupants.

As for undeployed CAPS systems, training for first responders is available and promoted to keep them safe when approaching any ballistic parachute system.

Cheers
Rick