Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuffler on October 25, 2011, 09:45:39 AM
-
A Cirrus SR22 crashed in Carrollton. One passenger dead, pilot and another passenger hurt. Chute was used but did not fully deploy. Might have been too low.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Small-plane-down-near-Carrollton-high-school-132471913.html?hpt=us_bn5 (http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Small-plane-down-near-Carrollton-high-school-132471913.html?hpt=us_bn5)
-
Either too low or too fast.
There's a pretty narrow part of the flight envelope that the chute will work within.
-
Cirrus recommends 3500' for chute deployment IIRC
Very sad indeed
-
Cirrus recommends 3500' for chute deployment IIRC
Very sad indeed
I'm not positive, but that seems a bit high. I know a doctor who owns a Cirrus, I'll have to ask her next time I see her at the airport. Or I can sneak into her hanger and read the POH :uhoh
Wolfalfa should probably know for certain.
-
The Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association Web site reports that Cirrus aircraft equipped with the "ballistic parachute" technology had "saved" 26 aircraft with a total of 50 survivors as of May 12 of this year. The Web site states that "no person has died when the CAPS (Cirrus Airframe Parachute System) deployed within design parameters," which is when the plane is traveling under 150 mph and is above 920 feet in a descent.
The owner's association reports that there have been three previous Cirrus crashes involving parachute deployment in Texas:
October 2002, Lewisville: The first reported CAPS activation. The pilot was unhurt.
August 2010, Porter: One person seriously injured.
December 2010, Nacogdoches: One person unhurt.
Snippit from the link.
-
I'm not positive, but that seems a bit high. I know a doctor who owns a Cirrus, I'll have to ask her next time I see her at the airport. Or I can sneak into her hanger and read the POH :uhoh
Wolfalfa should probably know for certain.
I do. A bit busy now between the crash last week at DXR up the road from me with a handsomehunk hitting an obstruction lite, and this one. Suffice to say, this pilot reported engine trouble, went missed on the ils, lost it and had a low altitude chute pull. Rear pax dead and 2 fronts survived.
-
The Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association Web site reports that Cirrus aircraft equipped with the "ballistic parachute" technology had "saved" 26 aircraft with a total of 50 survivors as of May 12 of this year. The Web site states that "no person has died when the CAPS (Cirrus Airframe Parachute System) deployed within design parameters," which is when the plane is traveling under 150 mph and is above 920 feet in a descent.
The owner's association reports that there have been three previous Cirrus crashes involving parachute deployment in Texas:
October 2002, Lewisville: The first reported CAPS activation. The pilot was unhurt.
August 2010, Porter: One person seriously injured.
December 2010, Nacogdoches: One person unhurt.
Snippit from the link.
Key is within the deployment limits. Weve had deployments far above the limiting speed, and Boris Popov from BRS instructed us after Oshkosh to eliminate the altitude limitation entirely from our vocabulary. Logic being any chute pull will reduce the energy of impact to maybe survivable instead of dead.
-
Cirrus recommends 3500' for chute deployment IIRC
Very sad indeed
Incorrect. We teach there is no limiting altitude for deployment.
-
Article said he tried turning back to the airport. How far from it was he? I don't recall the article saying. Turning back is probably one of the last things I would do in case of engine failure on climbout, but then again the Beech Sport I fly only climbs at aroung 500 fpm. What would a Cirrus loaded with three grown men climb at (roughly, assuming each man was near 200 lbs)
-
Wolfala,
In your opinion (since you fly a cirrus with a chute). Do you think that the chute allows pilots to 'not know how to recover from a bad situation' as well as they should because they know they have a fall back option? Basically is the psychology of a pilot with a chute different from the psychology of a pilot without one? Just curious what you think (BTW I'm not saying the pilot did anything wrong in this situation specifically, we'll wait for the NTSB report for that).
-
I think I have an explanation for the rumor that the chute split. It appears that the canopy separated from the risers and the wreckage.
Had a chance to investigate an oddity in one of the news photos. Notice the odd lines on the wing:
When I first noticed the odd lines, I didn't notice the white lines behind the first responders. Later, I discovered a TV news report that panned across the wreckage site. The first image shows a quite different aspect of those white lines:
They are the parachute risers! Hmmm... I thought I saw the parachute on the other side of the wreckage?
In the TV news video, they pan across the field and show the entire debris field. Here's a frame grab that shows the debris field (blurriness due to panning):
The parachute and right wing are down the hill to the left and the main wreckage is on the right. The main wreckage shows the white lines pointing farther away from the canopy. Hmmm... Here's a still of the parachute canopy:
Then I realized that the white lines I had ignored are the parachute risers. And they have snagged on something that has placed some tension to keep them straight horizontal. Yet, the colorful canopy, which normally is attached to the risers, is found separate and beyond the wreckage away from the direction of the risers.
My guess is that the plane tumbled after the canopy deployed, the risers and canopy snagged on something, the right wing fractured the spar and separated taking the canopy with it while the risers stopped the main cockpit wreckage.
If the parachute deployed upon impact while the plane was moving quickly and tumbling, then it got tangled up in the wreckage.
If the parachute was deployed at low altitude before impact, then the trajectory of the impact may have been altered, possibly contributing to the tumbling.
If the parachute was deployed at sufficient altitude 8 seconds prior to impact, then the impact velocity would have been reduced to 17 knots and this kind of wreckage would be highly unlikely.
Hope the investigators will find sufficient data soon so they can answer what happened when during the deployment and impact sequence.
Just 8 seconds . . .
-
In the report I linked witnesses saw the chute deploy while in the air.
-
In the report I linked witnesses saw the chute deploy while in the air.
When a plane crashed in the US, it becomes, by law, a federal crime scene. All wreckage and data become part of the investigation. Substantial damage or serious injuries require an investigation by the NTSB. (Less serious accidents may be investigated by the FAA using pilot interviews and self-reported data.)
When the NTSB launches an investigation, several parties are added to the investigation team, typically the aircraft manufacturer and the engine manufacturer, but occasionally other parties may become involved as circumstances warrant. For instance, the supplier of the parachute, BRS Aerospace, was involved in many early Cirrus investigations, as has Amsafe, the supplier of airbags.
Cirrus Aircraft maintains an active accident investigation team, their Air Safety group, that operates independently and reports separately in the company from the engineering, manufacturing and sales or marketing departments. They have access to all those resources, but have separate objectives to understand what happened in the accident sequence.
One valuable resource for investigators of Cirrus aircraft accidents in the large amount of recorded flight data. Avidyne Entegra models retain engine, navigation and flight attitude data in both the PFD and MFD. Perspective models retain some data in the PFD and MFD, but importantly a comprehensive set of data are recored in a data capture device located in the tail, the Remote Data Module. These data sets become part of the accident investigation and are analyzed by the NTSB Vehicle Recorder Lab. Several accident investigations have revealed surprising results from those analyses that clearly indicate what the pilot was facing as the accident sequence unfolded.
So, if a Cirrus does down, then an investigation is started. And Cirrus accident investigators are called in for most US and many foreign investigations.
COPA maintains a good and discrete working relationship with the Cirrus Air Safety team. All of the investigation parties are bound by non-disclosure until the factual report is approved and released by the NTSB. So, the Cirrus folks are unable to share details until after the completion of the investigation.
For this Carrollton accident, it is highly likely that very good data will be recovered to show exactly when the CAPS handle was activated, what decelerations were recorded and how the flight dynamics happened. Physical investigation will determine the status of the parachute canopy and risers, from which their tell-tale signatures reveal if the canopy was fully inflated or damaged.
Oh, by the way, witness statements are often inconsistent with the recorded data. Reports of engine noise, sputtering, cut-out, often do not show in the data. In this case, the parachute activation involves 90' risers so a post-impact deployment may be observed as if the plane was still in the air yet was actually already on the ground. Don't know details, but do know that witness statements need corroboration.
Wish the outcome were different.
-
Wolfala,
In your opinion (since you fly a cirrus with a chute). Do you think that the chute allows pilots to 'not know how to recover from a bad situation' as well as they should because they know they have a fall back option? Basically is the psychology of a pilot with a chute different from the psychology of a pilot without one? Just curious what you think (BTW I'm not saying the pilot did anything wrong in this situation specifically, we'll wait for the NTSB report for that).
Nova,
Sinc yr from my old hood I'll cut you a little slack. We are seeing many different cross sections of pilots these days. The primary buyers are business owners taking advantage of accelerated and bonus depreciation for the purposes of lowering their taxable obligations. These buyers maybe pilots already, but I know a large number who are in training. Further down the line are the mid level adopters who bought new years ago and kept the same airframe without offering upgrade mania like the iPhone. They might've downsized from Cessna 414s or 206s and wanted a traveling machine -essentially empty nesters. The next type was the serial upgrader - a few that had 4 airframes over the years and would buy new before the warranty ran out. They essentially could afford the depreciation hit. The last and newest type has been the used buyers - since each new iteration depresses the prices a bit, it's more affordable for those enteringnthe market. And also if you have a distressed buyer you can get it for a song if needbe.
That said, the vast majority of owners are prior owners of other types. Their cross section is similar in that to a Bonanza or higher end Mooney. The newer blood coming in, may not necessarily have the skill set to fly this aircraft - but that doesn't stop many. for a high performance single, the avionics systems complexity rivals that of many airliners. Especially the latest Garmin Perspctive iterations.
I dunno if that helps, but when stuff goes wrong in these air craft, with passengers, and poor weather - not everyone is cut out for that job and pressure. Just hope you played the odds right and it's not yr turn, because it can happen to any one of us.
-
Wolf, one of the Cirrus articles I read stated the Cirrus is "nearly impossible to recover from a spin". Is that true?
-
Hey wolf,
That makes sense. I was just curious because I'm finishing up my license in a citabria, and we did simulated emergencies last weekend so I had that on my mind. Obviously you know this, but in that airplane if you have an emergency you have no other way to get down other than to maintain flyable airspeed. That struck a chord with me to pay special attention to preparing for an emergency situation, and was wondering if knowing you had a chute allowed for any short cutting on the part of the pilot.
-
Wolf, one of the Cirrus articles I read stated the Cirrus is "nearly impossible to recover from a spin". Is that true?
Buster,
I could say 100% BS, but it'd be more entertaining for you to fwd the test report to those authors.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/310821_10150433907291214_656951213_10388708_941145664_n.jpg)
http://www.cirruspilots.org/media/p/582392/download.aspx (http://www.cirruspilots.org/media/p/582392/download.aspx)
-
Hey wolf,
That makes sense. I was just curious because I'm finishing up my license in a citabria, and we did simulated emergencies last weekend so I had that on my mind. Obviously you know this, but in that airplane if you have an emergency you have no other way to get down other than to maintain flyable airspeed. That struck a chord with me to pay special attention to preparing for an emergency situation, and was wondering if knowing you had a chute allowed for any short cutting on the part of the pilot.
In short, no. You still have the demonstrate to the PTS standards since you are being given a license to fly everything, not just 1 type. But that does not mean that it'd be smart to stick a 22 driver in a Grumman T-cat or Mooney 201. Either one of those will kill you in different ways.
But here's an example. Engine fire 5k to the deck. Which is faster - emergency descent with a chute pull at 1000, or maneuvering to landing. Keeping in mind, this is a 13000 ft runway i'm doing this on. Watch and learn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EE9jqIxQe4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EE9jqIxQe4)
-
In short, no. You still have the demonstrate to the PTS standards since you are being given a license to fly everything, not just 1 type. But that does not mean that it'd be smart to stick a 22 driver in a Grumman T-cat or Mooney 201. Either one of those will kill you in different ways.
But here's an example. Engine fire 5k to the deck. Which is faster - emergency descent with a chute pull at 1000, or maneuvering to landing. Keeping in mind, this is a 13000 ft runway i'm doing this on. Watch and learn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EE9jqIxQe4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EE9jqIxQe4)
Love your videos man.. thanks for posting. :aok
-
Reading the test report, it does state that if the correct spin recovery procedure is not immediately and correctly applied, then the spin could become unrecoverable. That's not very friendly behavior for any aircraft, but on balance the stall and spin resistant nature of the aircraft and the presence of the ballistic chute recovery system makes up for it. As noted, less than 1% of all mishaps in their sample were low altitude spins where the chute wouldn't work, and a very low percentage of mishaps were high altitude spin entries. So it looks like they targeted the flight characteristics to combat both inadvertent stall/spin scenarios, and stall/spin entries due to abusive flight control inputs, and then took the position that rather than give the idiot pilot who spun the spin-resistant aircraft a procedure that must be immediately applied correctly the first time, that idiot pilot has a big handle to pull. In either case, the airframe is going to be wrecked, but pulling the chute will usually save the occupants where riding the spin into the ground is invariably fatal.
It's hard to fault the manufacturer... I think their line of reasoning in the certification paperwork and mishap analysis is reasonable. Heck, the T-37 spin recovery procedure is almost identical to the SR22 spin recovery procedure, and it takes a whole lot of training to be comfortable entering and exiting spins in a predictable fashion.
-
From the report:
ii. Results. The aircraft recovered within one turn in all cases examined. Recovery controls
were to reduce power, neutralize ailerons, apply full rudder opposite to spin, and to apply
immediate full forward (nose down) pitch control. Altitude loss from spin entry to
recovery ranged from 1,200 – 1,800 feet. Detail results can be found in the above
referenced reports.
iii. Comments. No spin matrix less than that prescribed in AC23-8A or AC23-15, can
determine that all configurations are recoverable. It must be assumed that the SR20 has
some unrecoverable characteristics. In the SR20 proper execution of recovery control
movements is necessary to affect recovery, and aircraft may become unrecoverable with
incorrect control inputs.
Bold text emphasized by me, not the report.
-
A spin in any aircraft can become unrecoverable with incorrect inputs.
That may be their "don't spill hot coffee on yourself" quote.
-
A spin in any aircraft can become unrecoverable with incorrect inputs.
Not really... Unless your "unrecoverable" definition is not the same as mine. I assume "unrecoverable" means that no matter how much altitude you have, it is aerodynamically impossible to recover. Every one of the 9 aircraft I've flown both privately and professionally, from TG-6A motorglider to F-15E, are "recoverable" from spins, given enough altitude. You can't put them into unrecoverable spins. You can aggravate the spin to the point where recovery may take an excessive amount of altitude, or you may structurally fail the aircraft entering, during, or exiting the spin, but they'll all stop spinning eventually if the spin recovery procedure is applied, no matter how aggravated the spin is.
Even the T-37, the whirling whistling training device of doom, can be recovered from ANY spin mode by applying the spin recovery procedure. The only time I've heard of a crew having to deviate from the T-37 spin recovery procedure was in a plane that was either mis-rigged (tail bolted on wrong) or had a CG out of limits.
This cirrus is different, being more like marginally stable military aircraft like the F-104 and F-16 that have truly unrecoverable spin modes. Those military aircraft have ejection seats, the cirrus has a big parachute. Problem solved. But not every aircraft has a spin mode that is unrecoverable, regardless of how the controls are applied or mis-applied.