Lose the Chute Increase Safety

Mr. Birge makes very valid points. The chute won’t save anyone in a stall spin at 300AGL. And while the Cessna 100 series are by no means spin proof they require a significant amount of coaxing to flop on their backs (I learned to fly back in the days when spins were part of the private pilot curriculum).

I wonder about the Lexington incident. By definition the chute wasn’t needed because the crew was able to land the aircraft successfully and walk away. However, had the chute deployed in the air as designed would the crew still have walked away, or would they have suffered serious spinal injuries, broken backs, etc… I am unfamiliar with the published data regarding the sink rates and G forces associated with a parachute assisted landing. I have only heard that it is designed to save lives but is rather severe.

This incident seems to reinforce the concern that, over time, pilots will choose to deploy the chutes for reasons and frequency heretofore unanticipated. While some of these decisions may prove to save their lives, how many pilots and passengers will be permanently disabled when they otherwise would have simply “walked away”.

Steve

In reply to:


However, had the chute deployed in the air as designed would the crew still have walked away, or would they have suffered serious spinal injuries, broken backs, etc


The descent rate under the chute and the seat design are supposed to be such that there would be no major injuries, but of course there are many variables that prevent any guarantees. That’s why the POH warns that deployment of the chute could result in injury.

BRS have this to say in their FAQs:
WILL I BE INJURED ON TOUCHDOWN?

No one can say for sure that you will not sustain a serious injury. However, this is the single most important goal of any BRS system, so it has received intense scrutiny by many engineers, in and out of BRS.

For example, tests for the Cessna 150 showed the forces only use about a third of the human tolerance range.

Through June 1999, 127 lives were spared by real-time use of an installed BRS unit and zero life-threatening injuries were recorded. Virtually all users had no injuries whatsoever. If deployed at extreme low altitudes the aircraft may still be stabilizing at impact with some potential for injury.

The Cessna 150 and Cirrus SR20 systems successfully met all FAA criteria for occupant protection (according to FAA’s “Injury Criteria for Human Exposure to Impact”).

IThink the decent rate is 29 fps and the fuselage was designed to absord that…Just my opinion.

The following is quoted from the BRS first quarter 2002 report. Note 12 saves in 2001, 146 lives saved in total and expected certification of the chute for the Cessna 172 by the end of the year:

"By the end of fiscal 2002, BRS expects to complete its new certification of a parachute for the Cessna 172 line of aircraft. The 172 is the most popular aircraft ever built and represents a sizable market for the company’s emergency parachutes.

During calendar 2001, BRS documented saving 12 more aircraft occupants involved with in-flight emergencies. The addition brings the company’s total to 146 lives since the first life-saving deployment in 1983.

Since the early 1980s BRS has delivered over 16,000 parachute systems to aircraft owners around the world including FAA-certified production models like the Cessna 150, Cirrus SR20 and Cirrus SR22, and over 300 non-certified recreational aircraft."

In the interest of full disclosure, I own a small amount of BRS stock (barely equal to the cost of a few of the avionics boxes in the panel). However, I am much more interested in the safety side.

I think Cirrus was wise to make the chute standard equipment. I try to fly like there is no chute, but I sure like knowing that it is there. I do wish that Cirrus would go ahead and certify the SR2Xs for conventional stall recovery. That would put and end to a debate that will otherwise never be answered.

Had the chute in Lexington deployed we would have stastistics that showed the chute saved two lives. Of course, that would have been wrong because the assumption would have been that both occupants would have died without the chute when, in fact, they fortunately did not.

And don’t forget, the 'chute is NOT a “standard” safety feature like seatbelts or backup vacuum. Its supposed to be used only in a “nothing else remains that I as the pilot can do to save this plane” scenario.

The assumption is that the potential for serious injury is better than the certainty of death.

Of course, you may feel that death is preferable to living with an injury such as a broken back, etc. In that case, the choice to NOT pull the 'chute is yours, isn’t it?

When looking at the BRS data, it is worth remembering that the non-SR2x aircraft that the BRS is installed in were not certified to the current standards nor designed for use with the chute. Despite that, the data looks pretty promising.

The SR2x seats are certified to absorb vertical deceleration without spinal injuries; the SR2x crash cage is much more substantial than most existing GA aircraft.

So, while there are no guarantees in this world, the impact velocities with chute fully deployed should be something like 20mph vertical and wind speed horizontal. With the combination of seat and crash cage, the vertical component should be survivable with a fairly high probablility; the horizontal component obviously has greater variability.

But so does a forced landing over unknown terrain at night.

Bob

Its supposed to be used only in a “nothing else remains that I as the pilot can do to save this plane” scenario.

The assumption is that the potential for serious injury is better than the certainty of death.<<<

Precisely my point. In the Lexington incident clearly the chute was not needed, there was something the pilots could do and they did. We all imagine it would be great to have the chute if we lost a control surface or had a mid-air. Reality is that the first ever real intended deployment was unneeded. I am not second guessing the pilots nor suggesting I would do anything different under the circumstances. However, the only thing we know for sure is that we don’t know how humans will react over time having the chute at the ready. (back to Birge’s point).

One other thought. Initially the parachute was intended to appeal to the insurance underwriters. It seems however that the opportunity to total the aircraft is significantly higher than without. I can tell you it is tough getting insurance for a Turbo 182 or 206. How is the insurance market for a new Cirrus?

Steve

In reply to:


“Precisely my point. In the Lexington incident clearly the chute was not needed,…”


IMHO, the chute should be used anytime the pilot thinks it should be deployed! Saying it was not needed is a bad call.
If I recall correctly, the two pilots lost control of the aircraft in in low (600’ AGL) IMC. (Why, we don’t know. It may have been instrument failure, autopilot failure, spatial disorientation or a combination of the three.) Anyway, the plane impacted the ground at an estimated 18 degree nose down angle. The plane was destroyed. These two gentlemen walked away due at a combination of their piloting skills the crashworthy design of the airframe and God’s will (or luck, your choose). This is exactly when the chute should be used. What if they broke through the deck and were above buildings, trees or a crowd of people, not a grassy field? Your skills may be sufficinet to recover from an unusual attitude over unknown terrain at a similar altitude, but to recommend that others try that is not a great idea. I’m sorry, but in my feable and uneducated opinion, your advice/conclusion is wrong and downright dangerous!
In your opinion, what odds are required to pull the chute? 10% chance of death? 30%, 50% over 75%?
In my opinion, all that is required is enough doubt by the pilot that relying on the aircraft and the pilot’s own skills will not be a reasonably better risk than pulling the 'chute. If you’re in doubt, pull it. The last thing we need is for pilots to think about whether they are making the right decision once they have decided to pull the chute. Cirrus aircraft are very cheap compared to human life (just ask any insurance company).

Marty

PS: Steve: Sorry if you take this as a ‘flame’ or ‘too defensive.’ That is not my intention, but your comments are in contravention to the POH and do not seem to be in the interest of saving lives but reducing damage to the airframe. I am all in favor of openly discussing matters, but sometimes we go over the line and could potentially be giving bad and or dangersous advice.

First, I want to thank everyone who posted words of encouragement and expressions of kindness after my incident. For those few who have publicly questioned my judgment I’ll be the first to admit mistakes were made, but I assure you the fact that my airplane was equipped with a chute had no bearing on my go-no-go decision. I transitioned from a Cessna C206H to the SR20 and my personal minimums have not changed. As for my decision to deploy the chute, until you have experienced a total loss of control in IMC, you can’t know for sure how you will react. Moments before I pulled the handle I saw the ground coming up at me fast and KNEW we were about to die. Try a recovery from unusual attitudes in IMC with no TC and a tumbled AI after that. A humbling experience to say the least. The elevation here in Lexington is about 1000 MSL. Our TC failure and subsequent loss of control occurred near 2500’. The ceiling was 600’ OC. We had 1500’ between us and the ground.( Less if you factor in the loss of altitude that occurred during the first few seconds while I determined which instrument had failed.) We broke out, rolled wings level and pulled back hard on the stick. I felt significant G’s during recovery from the dive while I waited for what I KNEW was coming, an impact with terra-firma. To my surprise, we recovered and were back in the clouds. Now let me see… I have no TC, the AI appears to have tumbled and we might have just overstressed the airframe but thank GOD we’re still alive, maybe we can recover and if all else fails, we still have the chute. We tried to regain control but were unsuccessful. It seemed the ONLY way out of this jam was the chute. I informed my co-pilot/pax and ATC of my intention to deploy and initiated the procedure. Strange, nothing seemed to happen. I let go of the stick and pulled again and again, hard, both hands, bending the bracket. OK, I thought, it must be out there, just relax while it opens. Still nothing. Then we broke out for the second time. We are only 3-5 miles from the airport, but I’m thinking the chute is at least partially deployed and we’re dragging it. Returning to the airport under the ceiling was not an option with a partially deployed chute. We would have to pick a spot and land. At 600’ AGL, you don’t have many options but a small piece of unobstructed real estate was ahead. We landed in that muddy field. Talk about your short field landing, we stopped in less than 200 feet! The engineer from Cirrus determined from the compression on the “bacon saver” in the seat on my side took on the order of 12 G’s. Would we in this specific instance have been better off without the chute ? Probably. With no chute we would have had a chance to return to the airport under the ceiling. Would we be worse off had the chute actually worked as advertised? Perhaps. The end result to the airplane would have been the same, but as far as injuries to us, I don’t see how we could have faired better and it certainly could have been much worse under the chute. We both walked away virtually unscathed thanks to the seats, restraint system and a solid cockpit design. BTW, don’t loose that cute little egress hammer. In a crash or hard landing you WILL need it.

I would like to thank Mr. Heflin for his remarks and apologize now if he took anything I wrote as questioning his judgment.
I would be the last to question the judgment of another pilot, having had my share of “near misses”. Besides, how can any of us possibly know how we will react until we are there?

Also, I will sacrifice the aircraft every time in exchange for walking away. Many people die every year in a vain attempt to avoid an off airport landing. Clearly Mr. Heflin made exactly the right decision to set the aircraft down rather than attempting to make it to the airport. How do I know? He walked away unscathed, that’s how. What if that chute had tried to deploy in flight at 600AGL?!!

One thing seems to be clear. Cirrus did a good job of designing a crashworthy cockpit with excellent seats.

The only question I have been trying to pursue is whether or not they would have been better or worse off had the chute deployed. By his own account, in this circumstance Mr. Heflin indicated he was better off without the chute deployment, which is not to suggest that one incident is statistically significant. However this incident does point out that it is unfair for anyone to claim that a chute pulled equals a life saved. The fact that the chute was pulled does not mean the life would have been lost.

Steve

P.S. Mr. Heflin, as a former 206H and current Cirrus owner how do you feel the handling qualities compare between the two aircraft. It is a given that the 206 does not have the curb appeal nor the speed of the Cirrus. But based on your experience do you feel the 206 would have been as difficult to handle under the same circumstances, i.e. IMC w/inop TC, etc… Please understand this is not a loaded anti Cirrus question, just a question.

Steve

EXACTLY!!!

Paul, I, and I’m sure everybody reading your post, really appreciate your openness - we can all learn something from what happened to you, and the information is even more valuable since it did not come at the cost of death or serious injury.

Just one question, what did you do with the engine - did you shut it down when you pulled the chute, or what?

Thanks, Clyde

Are you going to continue flying? If so, what plane would you replace the Cirrus with?

Paul, for my curiosity, what mistakes do you think you made?

Seems pretty well-handled to me, with a great outcome.

Thanks for sharing all the details, by the way. Helpful to the rest of us, and glad you’re okay!

Andy

P.S. Mr. Heflin, as a former 206H and current Cirrus owner how do you feel the handling qualities compare between the two aircraft. It is a given that the 206 does not have the curb appeal nor the speed of the Cirrus. But based on your experience do you feel the 206 would have been as difficult to handle under the same circumstances, i.e. IMC w/inop TC, etc… Please understand this is not a loaded anti Cirrus question, just a question.<<

Steve,
I can’t imagine the outcome of the initial recovery efforts would have been much different in the 206. Given the choice of the two for the crash landing, I’ll give the edge to the Cirrus due to it’s superior seats, restraint system and airframe design. I have to wonder if we would have walked away from this event in the 206. On the other hand, IF we were in the 206, we could have flown back to the airport under the OC layer. Here in KY we have a saying “If a frog had wings, he wouldn’t wear out his ass sliding down the bank”. I guess that’s applicable in this case

Just one question, what did you do with the engine - did you shut it down when you pulled the chute, or what?<<

I believe either my co-pilot or I must have pulled the mixture back although we don’t remember doing it. The engine was sputtering on final decent as if the fuel had been shut off. The engine ran fine up to that point. I have preached pulling the little red knob back during passenger briefings on chute deployment enough that pulling the mixture back should have been an automatic reflex. Anyhow, the tanks were nearly full on departure and both tanks were breached. Thankfully there was no fire.

Are you going to continue flying? If so, what plane would you replace the Cirrus with? <<

Art,

I’m struggling with that decision now. I have been back in the left seat once in our 206 but I need more time at the controls before I can answer that question. I have not flown the 206 more than a few hours in the last year. I plan to find myself a good instructor and see if I can regain my confidence. Most of my flying is cross country with my wife and/or family. We are on a family vacation as we speak. We flew commercial for the first time in several years and it took us over 10 hours to get here. Any decent single would do this trip in under four hours. Needless to say I’m getting some encouragement from my wife and family to get back in the cockpit. As for replacing the Cirrus, I’ll probably wait several months before I decide.

Unless you’re litigation-proof on the outcome of the accident and your insurance on the plane, I’d avoid answering that question if I were you, Paul. BAD idea to go on the record admitting any sort of reversible pilot error.
(I’m not a lawyer, but I have to listen to one every night over the dinner table [:)]).
Everyone from the FAA to the landowner where you landed would use it in a lawsuit, and regardless of how stupid that lawsuit was, you can go broke defending yourself.

I think you make a very good point. Paul, consider my question withdrawn.

Andy