Cirrus chute deployment -- an incredible story

In article .com,
"Michael182/G" wrote:

I didn't post this for us as a community to "monday morning
quarterback" this fortunate pilot's decisions...

you asked for reactions. you got reactions.
("I would be interested in your reactions.")

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Michael182/G wrote:

I didn't post this for us as a community to "monday morning
quarterback" this fortunate pilot's decisions. It is not fair for us
to sit in front of a computer in the comfort of your home and think
about what you might have done differently than the guy who lived it in
real time.

Sure, it is quite fair. That is the kind of business the NTSB does all the
time, and mostly for prudent pilots to gain insight and knowledge from
other's mistakes, misfortunes, or bad judgments.

You said it right in your original post, and I quote you:

"I would be interested in your reactions"

I didn't post this for us as a community to "monday morning
quarterback" this fortunate pilot's decisions.

Well, actually you asked for our thoughts.

And in any case, my comments were not directed so much at second
guessing the pilot's judgement, but rather, at (yet again) questioning
the wisdom in the design of an airplane whose certification is dependent
on "if something(*) goes wrong, pull the chute NOW" and the requisite
training to do so. The pilot did what he was trained to do.

I am not second guessing the pilot. I am second guessing the design and
training.

(*) ok, the "something" is a spin, but the emphasis on pulling the chute
instead of flying the airplane makes it seem like a panacea which as a
design feature has been thought out from a marketing standpoint far more
than from a piloting standpoint.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Michael182/G wrote:
I didn't post this for us as a community to "monday morning
quarterback" this fortunate pilot's decisions.

Amen, Mike..

He made a snap decision based on what he thought was the right thing to
do. He lived to tell about it. Nobody else was hurt. Yes.. the plane is
totalled. Yes, that may impact someone elses insurance rates.. but ya
know what? He lived. The BRS did its job.

Could things have been done a bit better? Certainly.

The truth of the matter is... the pilot blacked out and KNEW that he had
blacked out. This happened without warning. He came back around in an
unusual attitude in weather that while not IMC was by his definition
"marginal". He had NO idea if he was about to black out again. It could
have happened at any moment.

How many here would have castigated this guy had he NOT pulled the
chute, blacked out and happened to crash into Indian Point, or spiral
into the fuel farm... or wipe out a playground full of children
somewhere along his path?

I'm glad it worked out "favorably" for him. It sucks loosing the medical
though... (from a medical standpoint, he is right, his flying days are
over... untreated, the tumor predisposes him to sudden incapacitation, a
disqualifying condition... treatment likely will require neurosurgery,
and more times than not, that results in the emergence of a seizure
condition that requires medication.. ALSO a disqualifying condition).

Kudo's to the pilot,
Dave

Michael182/G wrote:

I didn't post this for us as a community to "monday morning
quarterback" this fortunate pilot's decisions.

This *is* Usenet. Reactions of all types is exactly what you should have
expected.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Jose,

Nonetheless, I see this as a weakness in the Cirrus, not a strength.

In any case, he had recovered from the unusual attitude. A few moments
reflection would have been prudent; again a weakness of the "pull it
NOW" training that one is reported to receive with the Cirrus.


FWIW, I couldn't agree less. The underlying attitude is that "I'm a hero,
I'm THE RIGHT STUFF, I know better, I can handle everything thrown at me,
and damn the torpedoes". Statistics show that a lot of pilots get into a
lot of trouble with this attitude. I would think that this attitude is
very prevalent among pilots, too.

This was the perfect example for the benefit of the chute.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

FWIW, I couldn't agree less. The underlying attitude is that "I'm a hero,
I'm THE RIGHT STUFF, I know better, I can handle everything thrown at me,
and damn the torpedoes".

What underlying attitude? One has a blackout, wakes up to find
themselves in a high speed unusual attitude, recovers from it, and
decides to get ou the ground. No hero stuff here.

The question is, under pilot control or under a canopy.

Once the pilot had recovered, the =emergency= was over. It was still a
crisis situation, but time was no longer of the essence. One should
consider all available options, including looking out the window before
pulling the chute if there's time to do so (which there was).

My understanding of the Cirrus (I've never flown one) is that the chute
decision is to be made pretty much instantly (to preclude further
development of the spin for which it is designed). This training leads
to sub-optimal results when the emergency is not a spin.

He was at 1700 feet, no longer descending, and below redline speed.
After a fraction of a second of thought, he pulled the chute. Let's
consider his stated reasons:

no desire to proceed any further into marginal weather

Not time critical. No heroics involved in making a U-turn.

concern over the loss of altitude;

Not time critical. He is no longer losing altitude, and 1700 is safe in
that area. (were he still descending, it would be time critical
inasmuch as one needs some altitude for chute deployment to work, even
if it's ballistic).

concern that the plane's structural integrity was compromised by the
high speed descent and recovery

This is somewhat valid, but since the plane is still intact I would look
out the window first, and slow the airplane down first. Once the plane
is slowed, the stresses on the airframe are reduced. Also, if the plane
did begin to break up, one could =then= pull the chute (assuming the
pilot didn't get knocked around too much).

concern that the weakness in my right leg might hinder
my ability to control the plane down to the runway.

Not time critical. Fly TO the runway and pull the chute over an open
area if you must. In the interim you may find that you could control
the aircraft enough to walk away, even if you couldn't reuse the plane.
I don't see this as heroic either.

There are some situations (in the Cirrus) where one must pull the chute
NOW, but others (such as this one) where this is not the case, and even
five seconds reflection would make a much better outcome. In fact, had
he done everything right, he would have landed right in the middle of
the fuel farm, and there might have been a huge fire and no internet
posting to tell the tale. No heroics, and the chute would have done its
job.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose writes:

I think it was very prudent to activate the chute after an in-flight
discovery that you have a neurological problem that leads to blackouts
and physical weakness.

He didn't discover this until the hospital. He just discovered that
he had a blackout, and was a bit weak.

So he doesn't know it's a neurological problem. He *does* know that
*whatever it is* leads to blackouts and weakness, since he's just
experienced those.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

Jose wrote:
In any case, he had recovered from the unusual attitude....

this isn't only about the unusual attitude. This is about
an unusual blackout, loss of control of a limb and the
pilot facing 204 knots at 1900 feet AGL. If he blacks
out again he has as little as 5-6 seconds to auger it into
the ground (if pointed straight down). That ain't much.
Acro training won't help if he unexplicably blacks out again.
Even if trained in acro, which would you rather do...acro
at below 1900 AGL and already above VNE with a severely compromised
physiologic state and then shoot an approach in low VFR and
possibly IMC or use all available resources and pop the chute.
Now make that decision in seconds when the ground is coming
at you quickly.



Gerald Sylvester

Ben,

I just wonder if in retrospect he might have deemed it a better idea to
not pull the chute, and to instead fly the plane onto a runway

It's that tendancy to reject a known risk in favor of a future risk
(where the outcome could be much worse, but it *could* be much *better*)
that gets a lot of pilots into trouble.


I couldn't agree more.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)