Never a good day when aircraft go down. Amazing the occupants of the Cirrus survive the midair.
Another plus for the chute system.
Sad day with the deaths of those in the Robinson.


http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/10/ ... k-airport/

I had the misfortune to witness the mid air.

I have been haunted by what anyone could have done in the moments AFTER the impact.

We lost two good men that could have been (in my opinion) saved by a ballistic parachute. I think I can spare the 40lbs of useful load to protect myself and my passenger.

Chutes were the norm on ultra lights a decade ago. As the UL became more reliable we saw a decline ballistic chutes. But, the chutes are lighter and more effective than ever.

My project to add the chute to my Carbon Cub begins tomorrow. Any technical advice is welcome.

Sad news. And once again the media did a heck of a job butchering it. Not sure why a parachute ejected from the plane, and a 2 seat helicopter.

Fresno wrote:We lost two good men that could have been (in my opinion) saved by a ballistic parachute. I think I can spare the 40lbs of useful load to protect myself and my passenger.

Chutes were the norm on ultra lights a decade ago. As the UL became more reliable we saw a decline ballistic chutes. But, the chutes are lighter and more effective than ever.

My project to add the chute to my Carbon Cub begins tomorrow. Any technical advice is welcome.

I think a lot about this too, Fresno. A midair is probably the biggest case for the rescue chute. A BRS soft pack would make a nice addition to a build, but yeah, the weight and the space are significant for larger 4 place aircraft like so many of us fly. It won't save you from a low altitude collision or flight control failure but there are people walking around today alive because of them.

Yes, but they have several documented saves at 200' AGL.

The FAA test showed full inflation can occur at 260'-290' AGL.

The soft pack 1350 is about $5k and 29lbs.

I have been in aviation for awhile. Last thing I would have put on the plane was a chute. $4k for bigger tires - sure. New ANC headsets - why not. But $5k for something I will never use (I hope) - meh.

Now that has changed.

I can only speak for myself, but I got my wake up call Sunday 10/12.

The main motivation for Alan Klapmeier to design an aircraft with a parachute was his own midair collision thirty years ago:

Thirty years ago, when Alan was a young pilot, he was in a mid-air crash in the Midwest. He barely managed to bring his plane safely to the ground. He resolved that when he ran his own airplane-making company—he was such an entrepreneur that he thought of it as when, not if—he would protect pilots against this danger by equipping entire airplanes (not just passengers) with parachutes. That is what Cirrus did, with its SR-20 and SR-22 aircraft. The Cirrus pilot's split-second decision to deploy the parachute appears to have saved that plane's occupants, while tragically the helicopter was destroyed on impact after falling 1000 feet to the ground.

An article about today's midair by the great James Fallows of The Atlantic, a Cirrus owner himself:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/10/todays-mid-air-collision-outside-washington/381882/

I never thought of chutes as an option, in fact I thought of them as a negative, especially in aircraft known to have good structural integrity. But there are other factors that we all know that can happen to us. Engine failure over disastrous terrain, midair's, where there a chance of remaining conscious but the aircraft is doomed. Getting locked into zero zero wx. The reality is, it's cheap insurance to perhaps live and fly another day or, not having friends or family grieve over us. The nonsense of us whistling in the dark and that this shit can't happen to us, is a fallacy. It is a proven fact that chutes save lives.

I saw this on the news as I was signing the Blackhawk I flew back into maintenance after the flight.

I hadn't seen the final outcome. I'm glad some people survived, thanks for posting the link.

We're required to talk about mid-air collisions in our crew briefs, sad reminder that in a helicopter any mid-air collision is a catastrophic event. Poor folks.

Prayers to the families.

In the last fifty years, I have watched the top of the panel in small airplanes grow higher to accommodate the higher stacks of radios and electronic stuff. The Army has been sensitive about that sort of thinking, preferring not to give up visual situational awareness for electronic.

In reference to:

" It won't save you from a low altitude collision or flight control failure but there are people walking around today alive because of them."

Actually, the very first Cirrus CAPS (Cirrus Airframe Parachute System) save was due to a flight control failure. An A&P failed to properly safety an aileron and the aileron detached in flight. Pilot pulled the chute and lived.

Yesterday's chute save in Frederick, MD was Cirrus save #49 (out of 6,000 aircraft and millions of flight hours) and while the details will come, it was likely from well under 1,000' AGL, possibly 500'. We've had saves with pulls as low as 400' AGL. And that is in an SR22 which has a BEW of over 2400 lbs and MGW of 3400 lbs.

It took ten years of teaching and preaching to Cirrus owner/pilots to get them to shift their thinking in an emergency and pull the chute. For years the Cirrus fatal accident rate was about the same as the rest of the private GA fleet. Then, over the past two years, that shift occurred, pilots started using the chute when needed, and now the Cirrus fatal rate is around half that of the rest of the GA private fleet.
It took that long and many fatalities to bury the macho notion that "real pilots don't need no stinkin' chute". Cirrus full motion simulator instructors could easily "kill" high time professional pilots of all types until they got the chute into their mental "scan".

On this forum, almost everyone is flying a high wing plane with a low stall speed and rugged landing gear. With that set up, the odds of surviving an emergency off-airport landing into whatever terrain happens to be available are pretty good, maybe 75-80% assuming the wings and flight controls are mostly intact. With the low wing, higher stall speed, small-tired Cirrus (and other speedy "travelling" planes) the odds are much worse. The odds of surviving under the CAPS canopy are near 100%, when deployed within the design parameters. (The Cirrus chute pull that occurred after icing up and descending like a lawn dart well in excess of Vne didn't work.)

I'm a seven year Cirrus owner and active member of the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association (COPA) and only over the past three years getting into floatplanes, tailwheel, and "bush" flying. I am so pleased to be reading here on this forum some thoughtful discussion of whole-airframe chutes. As I said, it's taken a long time to move beyond the old attitudes. As this continues, fewer families will be torn apart, like the one at the service I attended last Sunday.

Pierre

contactflying wrote:In the last fifty years, I have watched the top of the panel in small airplanes grow higher to accommodate the higher stacks of radios and electronic stuff. The Army has been sensitive about that sort of thinking, preferring not to give up visual situational awareness for electronic.

Exactly......

An old quote in reference to yesterday's mid-air.

"Helicopters are like bears. Not necessarily dangerous, but you NEVER take your eyes off them."

Gump

The very first aircraft I ever flew were Quicksilver ultralights. They were all equipped with BRS systems. This was before the Cirrus ever hit the market. At that time, I recall the magic number being 300' AGL as a minimum altitude for a full deployment. Of course, that number didn't mean shit to me because I had no altimeter, so it was a just a guessimate as to how low I could pull that T-handle cable if the aircraft lost a wing or became otherwise uncontrollable.

It's been funny, and a little sad at times, to see the attitudes and reception that this technology gets in aviator circles over the last 20 years. The attitude somehow focusing on the irony of a safety device influencing risktaking. I never considered it anything more than a last chance to save my skin, which coincidentally was the namesake before BRS was formed.... Second Chantz. That guy sold his technology and patents to BRS in the early 90's I think.

I say low altitude collision or flight control failure when I should have said low altitude collision or low altitude flight control failure. There's that phase of flight where nothing can save you other than good luck. You need a little altitude to make it work. Apparently that number is in the 200's according to user Fresno and FAA testing. Then there's the accidental deployment that causes the crash.

If the tech was there, I'd make no hesitation in installing one in my aircraft. The BRS site is a little light on the information for what is available in the softpacks for heavier aircraft. They say "under 3400 pounds" but show no products beyond the light sport stuff.

Pierre,

If your parachute data is correct, it would work as well for high wing. Low wing airplanes crash better than high wing. The main design objective in modern spray planes is crash survivability. They are all low wing. The wing absorbs the energy of a crash much better than gear and fuselage. I have walked away from two Pawnee and one Callair crash without a scratch.

Air Force and Navy "zoomies" live in a "game over" world if anything happens. And they don't pay for another aircraft. I don't think the lower end of general aviation will get there anytime soon. I think training in forced landings down to 200,' spot landing training, and look out the window situational awareness training would do a lot more to mitigate fatalities in general aviation than would parachutes.

Best regards,

Jim

contactflying wrote:Pierre,
I think training in forced landings down to 200,' spot landing training, and look out the window situational awareness training would do a lot more to mitigate fatalities in general aviation than would parachutes.

That's all fine and dandy if the aircraft controls work (even a little) and the collision threat exists in a predictable manner that's not in your blind spots. These threads always go the same direction:

User A argues the benefits of ballistic parachutes.
User B argues the importance of situational awareness and visual scan.
User A and User B believe they're arguing opposing viewpoints.

In the GA world, how many control surface failures occur each year, other than those where a linkage/cable are accidentally reversed by a mechanic and evident a few seconds into take-off roll?

Compare that to the number of accidents caused by head up ass pilots looking at electronics inside the cockpit, instead of looking outside for other aircraft. Bet those numbers aren't even close.

Chutes are cool, and there's no reason not to embrace that technology. But a more dangerous and immediate problem is getting so called pilots to look outside their f**king airplanes, and quit thinking they are the only ones in the air.

Gump

Regarding

"If your parachute data is correct, it would work as well for high wing."

Absolutely no argument there. There is a certified BRS STC for the Cessna 182 and likely others as well. Of course in the experimental world, there are even more options. One of our local good friends and Tahoe area seaplane pilot is putting one on his SeaRey.

Regarding

"Low wing airplanes crash better than high wing."

I never thought of that. Although I'm fairly new to this forum, in that short time, I have come to recognize your very long and broad experience and have learned from you. My thoughts are based on the stories of many low wing GA airplanes where the pilot did an admirable job of a forced deadstick, off-airport landing, only to have that low wing full of 100LL breached by a rock or sign post or whatever, and everyone perishes in the fireball.

I attended the HSF at 3SGS last year, and besides the infamous red Mooney, 99% of the airplanes are high wing and most with some sort of burly landing gear. I'm in the process of the first seasonal conversion of my 182 amphib to wheel gear and I'm installing the Landis fork with a Goodyear 8.50 on the nose and mains for now, with 29" ABW's on order. All this based largely on advice from this forum and local BCPers.

It seems readily apparent that high wings provide improved clearance over ground obstacles like rocks, posts, etc. and are less likely to receive damage to the wings and ailerons from debris kicked up and less likely to breach a fuel tank. So, I guess my thinking was that given the choice of which plane they'd rather make a forced landing into rough terrain with (assuming no BRS chute on board), that the majority on this knowledgeable forum would choose a high wing (Cub, Maule, Cessna, etc.) over a Cirrus, Bonanza, Mooney, etc.

Regarding

"The main design objective in modern spray planes is crash survivability. They are all low wing. The wing absorbs the energy of a crash much better than gear and fuselage."

Again, your experience in dusting is great and makes for informative and very entertaining reading. I've loved it! While I know almost nothing about crop dusting, I'll put my businessman cap on to suggest a harsh alternative. Namely that "crash survivability" is NOT the "main" design objective, but rather a strong secondary design objective. The main design objective of a working-for-profit aircraft is efficacy and cost to complete the missions. Otherwise, you'd have, for instance, all sorts of steel reinforcement, and a much smaller useful load to haul the pesticides you're getting paid to apply.

The low wing design of Thrushes, Pawnees, etc. are obviously the most efficient and effective for the installation of the spray bars and related gear. I'm not saying the businessmen who make the financial and design decisions don't love you pilots, just that they're looking at the job to get done first.

Back to the bigger topic of what lessons or ideas can we draw from this accident. For me, one is further proof that the chute works to save lives. Another is reinforcement of the obvious of keeping our heads up and eyes open, especially in the airport environment and especially with helicopters around. Lastly, regarding this immediate discussion, for me, if the piston single I'm flying isn't well-suited for off airport ops, then I want a chute on board!

Pierre

PS I just saw the exchange with Zzz. Yep, same old "arguments" that really aren't an argument. Yes, we should all keep our heads up and we should all FTFP. With a chute, the main difference is when someone doesn't (either you or the other guy), the penalty doesn't have to be death.

140flyer wrote:Regarding

"If your parachute data is correct, it would work as well for high wing."

Absolutely no argument there. There is a certified BRS STC for the Cessna 182 and likely others as well. Of course in the experimental world, there are even more options. One of our local good friends and Tahoe area seaplane pilot is putting one on his SeaRey.

Regarding

"Low wing airplanes crash better than high wing."

I never thought of that. Although I'm fairly new to this forum, in that short time, I have come to recognize your very long and broad experience and have learned from you. My thoughts are based on the stories of many low wing GA airplanes where the pilot did an admirable job of a forced deadstick, off-airport landing, only to have that low wing full of 100LL breached by a rock or sign post or whatever, and everyone perishes in the fireball.

I attended the HSF at 3SGS last year, and besides the infamous red Mooney, 99% of the airplanes are high wing and most with some sort of burly landing gear. I'm in the process of the first seasonal conversion of my 182 amphib to wheel gear and I'm installing the Landis fork with a Goodyear 8.50 on the nose and mains for now, with 29" ABW's on order. All this based largely on advice from this forum and local BCPers.

It seems readily apparent that high wings provide improved clearance over ground obstacles like rocks, posts, etc. and are less likely to receive damage to the wings and ailerons from debris kicked up and less likely to breach a fuel tank. So, I guess my thinking was that given the choice of which plane they'd rather make a forced landing into rough terrain with (assuming no BRS chute on board), that the majority on this knowledgeable forum would choose a high wing (Cub, Maule, Cessna, etc.) over a Cirrus, Bonanza, Mooney, etc.

Regarding

"The main design objective in modern spray planes is crash survivability. They are all low wing. The wing absorbs the energy of a crash much better than gear and fuselage."

Again, your experience in dusting is great and makes for informative and very entertaining reading. I've loved it! While I know almost nothing about crop dusting, I'll put my businessman cap on to suggest a harsh alternative. Namely that "crash survivability" is NOT the "main" design objective, but rather a strong secondary design objective. The main design objective of a working-for-profit aircraft is efficacy and cost to complete the missions. Otherwise, you'd have, for instance, all sorts of steel reinforcement, and a much smaller useful load to haul the pesticides you're getting paid to apply.

The low wing design of Thrushes, Pawnees, etc. are obviously the most efficient and effective for the installation of the spray bars and related gear. I'm not saying the businessmen who make the financial and design decisions don't love you pilots, just that they're looking at the job to get done first.

Back to the bigger topic of what lessons or ideas can we draw from this accident. For me, one is further proof that the chute works to save lives. Another is reinforcement of the obvious of keeping our heads up and eyes open, especially in the airport environment and especially with helicopters around. Lastly, regarding this immediate discussion, for me, if the piston single I'm flying isn't well-suited for off airport ops, then I want a chute on board!

Pierre

PS I just saw the exchange with Zzz. Yep, same old "arguments" that really aren't an argument. Yes, we should all keep our heads up and we should all FTFP. With a chute, the main difference is when someone doesn't (either you or the other guy), the penalty doesn't have to be death.

So do you have the chute in your 182?

GumpAir wrote:In the GA world, how many control surface failures occur each year, other than those where a linkage/cable are accidentally reversed by a mechanic and evident a few seconds into take-off roll?

Compare that to the number of accidents caused by head up ass pilots looking at electronics inside the cockpit, instead of looking outside for other aircraft. Bet those numbers aren't even close.

Spontaneous flight control failure is close to unheard of. What I was getting at is post-collision flight control failure, to which your second point is well taken.

"So do you have the chute in your 182?"

Great question. Quick answer is "not yet".

I bought this airplane out of Canada, already all built up as an amphib with all the cool mods. One of the reasons I chose it (besides the large cabin and just overall how it was put together and how it looked) was because of the availability of the BRS STC. Later on, after I bought it, when I inquired about the installation, it became unclear whether it was approved on a 182 amphib.

The Seaplanes West float kit, Aerocet 3400's, Peterson IO550, Wing X, Sportsman STOL, etc. were all done via approved STC's, but it gets confusing when you layer an STC on top of an STC. Neither Seaplanes West nor BRS wanted to say that the chute installation would be "right" or "wrong". Clearly, the gross weight is higher, and the "vertical" center of gravity changes. Also, the space between the front seats, where the BRS handle assembly would normally go, is taken up with the float rudder handle and the amphib gear manual pump, so the standard approved installation would have to be modified. Lastly, from watching videos of BRS test deployments, a lot goes on post-deployment and there is a reason it is a big deal to get it approved for a specific aircraft.

I decided not to become a test pilot/plane for a one-off mod of the STC, and so I put it off, and up to now, I've been flying it exclusively as a seaplane. With my current conversion underway for winter wheel flying, the thought comes up again . . .stay tuned!

Oh, and in my simple logic, all that extra gear of the floats and struts provide some additional protection in the event of a rough off-airport landing should I find the need between bodies of water and airports!

Pierre

From "How to Avoid a Mid-Air Collision" by the FAA: http://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/alc/libview_normal.aspx?id=6851

Statistics on 105 in-flight collisions that occurred from 1964 to 1968 show that 82 percent had convergence angles associated with one aircraft overtaking another. Specifically, 35 percent were from 0 to 10 degrees - straight from behind. Only 5 percent were from a head-on angle. These numbers, plus the fact that 77 percent occurred at or below 3,000 feet (with 49 percent at or below 500 feet) imply accurately that in-flight collisions generally occur in the traffic pattern and primarily on final approach. Collisions occurring enroute generally are at or below 8,000 feet and within 25 miles of an airport.

In many if not most cases of mid-airs in this survey, one of the aircraft could not have seen and avoided the other, overtaking aircraft. I'd love to be able to shake the gnawing feeling that luck and the relative sparseness of aircraft in the air are major factors in keeping mid-airs from being more common.