Why CAPS? An Accident Report

LONG STORY SHORT: “If only they had CAPS”…

A friend of mine frequently hires a local charter service for biz transport… and admired the cautious & deliberate operations exhibited by the charter owner:pilot. Most recent biz trip was just 2 days ago with aprox 6hrs flight time… all quite normal. This morning we learned of an accident involving this aircraft. This is what happened & on reflection provides positive support

for Cirrus’ CAPS.

Part#135 charter operated Piper Saratoga

suffered catastrophic engine failure yesterday afternoon & ocean ditched off Kennebunkport ME

with 5 souls on board. Pilot was in ATC contact
and advised re engine loss & ditching.

Owner:Pilot + front seat passenger got out thru

(passenger side) front door; pilot swam around to assist opening (pilot side) rear door & helped
closest passenger out (his wife); two remaining passengers did not get out & are presumed to have gone down with aircraft. They were close enough to shore to have several private boats arrive quickly on the scene.

Loud explosion, followed by oil covering windscreen, points to piston or rod failure.

Structural failures were encountered on ditching
with very short “float time”.

Aircraft had completed Annual 2 weeks ago, had some 1200 hours on engine. Engine monitoring had previously been showing #2cylinder running hot,

testing revealed no reasons, switching cable wiring from probes still indicated #2 running hot.

Then excess temp condition seemed to go away with no further attention. (Faulty probe? High RPM use as normal operation mode? Frequent fast decents & shock cooling? Metal fatigue?)

Given the nature of sudden engine loss + no other choice but ocean ditching … CAPS deployment would have been “no brainer” decision & would be expected to result in slow & flat contact with the water & likely consequent increase in “float time” … and a chance for ALL to have exited.

CIRRUS: please continue expediting your mfg schedule & let me know when to come pickup my

aircraft with it’s 80# of CAPS Dead Weight to lug around … I do consider the CAPS to be part of the USEFUL LOAD.

CIRRUS: please continue expediting your mfg schedule & let me know when to come pickup my

aircraft with it’s 80# of CAPS Dead Weight to lug around … I do consider the CAPS to be part of the USEFUL LOAD.

Great point about “useful load”! Couldn’t agree more. If this was the only scenario in which CAPS could save lives it would still be more than worth the cost and weight.

It is important to point out also that the “experts” say that a fixed gear plane would be more likely than a retractable (with wheels up) to flip or experience structural failure when ditching.

Although I am a staunch supporter of the CAPS, I am not sure it is always best to use it over water for a ditching, absent loss of control or some additional factor. The CAPS system lowers the SR20 at a vertical velocity of 1600-1800 fpm, according to a Feb, 1999 article in FLYING magazine. How does this compare to bringing the aircraft in for a controlled ditching without a chute? If the descent rate is lower in a normal ditching, I would think your chance of survival is greater without the chute, unless you have lost control or there is some other factor to consider. The Cirrus manual does not mention the vertical velocity of 1600-1800 fpm. I think these figures should be verified and compared against the actual descent rate at best glide speed. Also, how do the forward speeds compare at impact? Apparently, the Saratoga pilot handled the incident as well as could be expected in a normal ditching.

LONG STORY SHORT: “If only they had CAPS”…

A friend of mine frequently hires a local charter service for biz transport… and admired the cautious & deliberate operations exhibited by the charter owner:pilot. Most recent biz trip was just 2 days ago with aprox 6hrs flight time… all quite normal. This morning we learned of an accident involving this aircraft. This is what happened & on reflection provides positive support

for Cirrus’ CAPS.

Part#135 charter operated Piper Saratoga

suffered catastrophic engine failure yesterday afternoon & ocean ditched off Kennebunkport ME

with 5 souls on board. Pilot was in ATC contact
and advised re engine loss & ditching.

Owner:Pilot + front seat passenger got out thru

(passenger side) front door; pilot swam around to assist opening (pilot side) rear door & helped
closest passenger out (his wife); two remaining passengers did not get out & are presumed to have gone down with aircraft. They were close enough to shore to have several private boats arrive quickly on the scene.

Loud explosion, followed by oil covering windscreen, points to piston or rod failure.

Structural failures were encountered on ditching
with very short “float time”.

Aircraft had completed Annual 2 weeks ago, had some 1200 hours on engine. Engine monitoring had previously been showing #2cylinder running hot,

testing revealed no reasons, switching cable wiring from probes still indicated #2 running hot.

Then excess temp condition seemed to go away with no further attention. (Faulty probe? High RPM use as normal operation mode? Frequent fast decents & shock cooling? Metal fatigue?)

Given the nature of sudden engine loss + no other choice but ocean ditching … CAPS deployment would have been “no brainer” decision & would be expected to result in slow & flat contact with the water & likely consequent increase in “float time” … and a chance for ALL to have exited.

CIRRUS: please continue expediting your mfg schedule & let me know when to come pickup my

aircraft with it’s 80# of CAPS Dead Weight to lug around … I do consider the CAPS to be part of the USEFUL LOAD.

I’ve been curious about two things for a couple of years. In fact, I asked CD two years ago at Oshkosh and they said that they didn’t know.

  1. Since the landing gear is desigined to absorb a large part of the landing impact when CAPS is deployed; what would the results be in a water landing? Because there is almost no forward motion, almost all of the impact would be taken up (very abruptly it seems to me) by the flat undersides of the wings and fuseledge.

  2. The other question is: Does the SR20 float?

Incidently, there is an excellent web site by Doug Ritter devoted to aviation, marine, and wilderness survival. http://www.equipped.com
He contends that statistically in about 93% of all ditchings, the occupants of the aircraft survive the water impact and get out of airplane. Most fatalities occur because they don’t have the knowledge or equipment to survive in the water until they’re rescued.

I agree CAPS would probably be the best choice. But there is one problem that could make a water deployment a disastor! Being an x-sky diver, when we made water jumps, we would cut away from the chute 10’ off the deck to avoid getting tangled up with the chute. If the CAPS chute fell on the plane, it would be very difficult for anyone to get out!

LONG STORY SHORT: “If only they had CAPS”…

A friend of mine frequently hires a local charter service for biz transport… and admired the cautious & deliberate operations exhibited by the charter owner:pilot. Most recent biz trip was just 2 days ago with aprox 6hrs flight time… all quite normal. This morning we learned of an accident involving this aircraft. This is what happened & on reflection provides positive support

for Cirrus’ CAPS.

Part#135 charter operated Piper Saratoga

suffered catastrophic engine failure yesterday afternoon & ocean ditched off Kennebunkport ME

with 5 souls on board. Pilot was in ATC contact
and advised re engine loss & ditching.

Owner:Pilot + front seat passenger got out thru

(passenger side) front door; pilot swam around to assist opening (pilot side) rear door & helped
closest passenger out (his wife); two remaining passengers did not get out & are presumed to have gone down with aircraft. They were close enough to shore to have several private boats arrive quickly on the scene.

Loud explosion, followed by oil covering windscreen, points to piston or rod failure.

Structural failures were encountered on ditching
with very short “float time”.

Aircraft had completed Annual 2 weeks ago, had some 1200 hours on engine. Engine monitoring had previously been showing #2cylinder running hot,

testing revealed no reasons, switching cable wiring from probes still indicated #2 running hot.

Then excess temp condition seemed to go away with no further attention. (Faulty probe? High RPM use as normal operation mode? Frequent fast decents & shock cooling? Metal fatigue?)

Given the nature of sudden engine loss + no other choice but ocean ditching … CAPS deployment would have been “no brainer” decision & would be expected to result in slow & flat contact with the water & likely consequent increase in “float time” … and a chance for ALL to have exited.

CIRRUS: please continue expediting your mfg schedule & let me know when to come pickup my

aircraft with it’s 80# of CAPS Dead Weight to lug around … I do consider the CAPS to be part of the USEFUL LOAD.

LONG STORY SHORT: “If only they had CAPS”…

A friend of mine frequently hires a local charter service for biz transport… and admired the cautious & deliberate operations exhibited by the charter owner:pilot. Most recent biz trip was just 2 days ago with aprox 6hrs flight time… all quite normal. This morning we learned of an accident involving this aircraft. This is what happened & on reflection provides positive support

for Cirrus’ CAPS.

Part#135 charter operated Piper Saratoga

suffered catastrophic engine failure yesterday afternoon & ocean ditched off Kennebunkport ME

with 5 souls on board. Pilot was in ATC contact
and advised re engine loss & ditching.

Owner:Pilot + front seat passenger got out thru

(passenger side) front door; pilot swam around to assist opening (pilot side) rear door & helped
closest passenger out (his wife); two remaining passengers did not get out & are presumed to have gone down with aircraft. They were close enough to shore to have several private boats arrive quickly on the scene.

Loud explosion, followed by oil covering windscreen, points to piston or rod failure.

Structural failures were encountered on ditching
with very short “float time”.

Aircraft had completed Annual 2 weeks ago, had some 1200 hours on engine. Engine monitoring had previously been showing #2cylinder running hot,

testing revealed no reasons, switching cable wiring from probes still indicated #2 running hot.

Then excess temp condition seemed to go away with no further attention. (Faulty probe? High RPM use as normal operation mode? Frequent fast decents & shock cooling? Metal fatigue?)

Given the nature of sudden engine loss + no other choice but ocean ditching … CAPS deployment would have been “no brainer” decision & would be expected to result in slow & flat contact with the water & likely consequent increase in “float time” … and a chance for ALL to have exited.

CIRRUS: please continue expediting your mfg schedule & let me know when to come pickup my

aircraft with it’s 80# of CAPS Dead Weight to lug around … I do consider the CAPS to be part of the USEFUL LOAD.

I would like to address the need to assume a brace position should the parachute be used. Impact would be similar to the g forces present when an ejection seat is used. Since the odds of landing on a truly flat surface are about the same as my airplane being delivered yesterday and throwing in possible night deployment you had best not be turning around talking to those in the back or bending over picking up a pencil when you hit. I do not know if the POH talks about this at all but I think it is very important to emphasize that as soon as possible everyone sit perfectly straight with there spine alined in the verticle and head back against the seat and stay there. It is difficult to tell height above the ground while descending vertically and almost impossible to judge over water.

Agree that this Saratoga pilot seems to have made the best of a bad situation.

Here’s what I wonder: as I understand it, damage on impact is a function of total energy to be dissipated. That’s the downward velocity – fpm descent – PLUS the forward velocity. Otherwise there’d be no damage in car crashes, where vertical fpm=0. In the case of a Saratoga at best glide, there might be at least 80mph forward speed on impact.

Unless you slam into a wall, the forward energy isn’t dissipated instantaneously, as downward is. But does anyone know how to balance these factors, forward and downward, in predicting likely damage? Just from looking at the CAPS films, forward velocity appears to be extremely low after the chute deploys. Anyone know of studies about how this nets out – and whether reducing forward velocity might be the greater contribution of the CAPS?

BTW tried to send this question to ‘Wonderer’ but was bounced back as bad address/user unknown.

Although I am a staunch supporter of the CAPS, I am not sure it is always best to use it over water for a ditching, absent loss of control or some additional factor. The CAPS system lowers the SR20 at a vertical velocity of 1600-1800 fpm, according to a Feb, 1999 article in FLYING magazine. How does this compare to bringing the aircraft in for a controlled ditching without a chute? If the descent rate is lower in a normal ditching, I would think your chance of survival is greater without the chute, unless you have lost control or there is some other factor to consider. The Cirrus manual does not mention the vertical velocity of 1600-1800 fpm. I think these figures should be verified and compared against the actual descent rate at best glide speed. Also, how do the forward speeds compare at impact? Apparently, the Saratoga pilot handled the incident as well as could be expected in a normal ditching.

LONG STORY SHORT: “If only they had CAPS”…

A friend of mine frequently hires a local charter service for biz transport… and admired the cautious & deliberate operations exhibited by the charter owner:pilot. Most recent biz trip was just 2 days ago with aprox 6hrs flight time… all quite normal. This morning we learned of an accident involving this aircraft. This is what happened & on reflection provides positive support

for Cirrus’ CAPS.

Part#135 charter operated Piper Saratoga

suffered catastrophic engine failure yesterday afternoon & ocean ditched off Kennebunkport ME

with 5 souls on board. Pilot was in ATC contact
and advised re engine loss & ditching.

Owner:Pilot + front seat passenger got out thru

(passenger side) front door; pilot swam around to assist opening (pilot side) rear door & helped
closest passenger out (his wife); two remaining passengers did not get out & are presumed to have gone down with aircraft. They were close enough to shore to have several private boats arrive quickly on the scene.

Loud explosion, followed by oil covering windscreen, points to piston or rod failure.

Structural failures were encountered on ditching
with very short “float time”.

Aircraft had completed Annual 2 weeks ago, had some 1200 hours on engine. Engine monitoring had previously been showing #2cylinder running hot,

testing revealed no reasons, switching cable wiring from probes still indicated #2 running hot.

Then excess temp condition seemed to go away with no further attention. (Faulty probe? High RPM use as normal operation mode? Frequent fast decents & shock cooling? Metal fatigue?)

Given the nature of sudden engine loss + no other choice but ocean ditching … CAPS deployment would have been “no brainer” decision & would be expected to result in slow & flat contact with the water & likely consequent increase in “float time” … and a chance for ALL to have exited.

CIRRUS: please continue expediting your mfg schedule & let me know when to come pickup my

aircraft with it’s 80# of CAPS Dead Weight to lug around … I do consider the CAPS to be part of the USEFUL LOAD.

from company newsletter…

The rocket motor is started by pulling the activation handle.Once ignited the rocket bursts through the enclosure coverand the deployment bag

then stages the inflation of the parachute. In approximately 2 seconds the parachute begins to inflate. The forward harness straps pull through the skin to the firewall attach points. When the canopy begins to fill with air, forward motion of the airplane is dramatically slowed. The occupants may feel decelleration rates approaching 3G’S . During this decelleration a slight nose up may be experienced, then the nose gradually drops until the airplane is hanging nose low beneath the canopy. Eight seconds after the deployment, therear riser snub lineis cut and the aircraft drops down into its touchdown attitude. Descent rates are between 1600-1800 feet per minute. Ground impact is equivalent to touchdown from a height of approximately 10 feet.

You are leaving your forward speed out of the equation. If you catch a wave it is like hitting a brick wall at 70K. Also you may flip over. I vote for the chute over water.

Although I am a staunch supporter of the CAPS, I am not sure it is always best to use it over water for a ditching, absent loss of control or some additional factor. The CAPS system lowers the SR20 at a vertical velocity of 1600-1800 fpm, according to a Feb, 1999 article in FLYING magazine. How does this compare to bringing the aircraft in for a controlled ditching without a chute? If the descent rate is lower in a normal ditching, I would think your chance of survival is greater without the chute, unless you have lost control or there is some other factor to consider. The Cirrus manual does not mention the vertical velocity of 1600-1800 fpm. I think these figures should be verified and compared against the actual descent rate at best glide speed. Also, how do the forward speeds compare at impact? Apparently, the Saratoga pilot handled the incident as well as could be expected in a normal ditching.

Agree that this Saratoga pilot seems to have made the best of a bad situation.

Agreed - of course half the problem (pun intended) with Pipers in general is that half the doors are missing! One wonders if the outcome of this incident may have been different if every occupant was next to a door.

Unless you slam into a wall, the forward energy isn’t dissipated instantaneously,

On land, that’s probably true, on water, I would expect it to be very much like hitting a brick wall, especially with fixed gear.

Just from looking at the CAPS films, forward velocity appears to be extremely low after the chute deploys.

The only forward velocity is the wind velocity.

The easy part: (1) CAPS: assuming a 1800 fpm decent in a 20 knot wind, we have about 2700 fpm total velocity at impact. (2) Glide: Assuming a 90 knot glide at a 10:1 ratio, we have about 910 vertical fpm and 9150 total fpm at impact. (And since total energy varies as the square of the velocity, the impact from the glide must dissipate about 11.5 times as much energy.)

Clearly, no glide speed will give us a lower total velocity than CAPS will. The hard question is the interaction between the landing gear and the water. On a glide, it might “trip” and throw the plane forward. On a CAPS descent, it wouldn’t absorb the impact like it would on land, but water displacement would afford some cushion.

I still remember those TV pictures of the hijacked 747 that tried to ditch at sea, dipped a wing, and pinwheeled across the water. CAPS seems like a much less risky way to come down, the slower the better. And in a water ditching, there’s no question of trying to save the aircraft.

Unless you slam into a wall, the forward energy isn’t dissipated instantaneously, as downward is. But does anyone know how to balance these factors, forward and downward, in predicting likely damage? Just from looking at the CAPS films, forward velocity appears to be extremely low after the chute deploys. Anyone know of studies about how this nets out – and whether reducing forward velocity might be the greater contribution of the CAPS?

I’ve been curious about two things for a couple of years. In fact, I asked CD two years ago at Oshkosh and they said that they didn’t know.

  1. Since the landing gear is desigined to absorb a large part of the landing impact when CAPS is deployed; what would the results be in a water landing? Because there is almost no forward motion, almost all of the impact would be taken up (very abruptly it seems to me) by the flat undersides of the wings and fuseledge.

While the landing gear won’t absorb any of the landing impact, the wings have 4.5 degrees of dihedral which should help to “part the waters” a little bit. The plane, or any other object, will partially submerge as it decelerates and then pop up back to the surface for who knows how long. This will spread out the distance over which the plane decelerates from its stabilized vertical descent speed to zero, thus decreasing the G forces of impact. While a belly flop off of a diving board into a swimming pool hurts, it doesn’t hurt nearly as much as if the pool were empty.

So,IMHO the plane will hit the water and partially submerge (like a floating fishing lure does when cast) before popping back up to the surface. As the wings hit at the root first, the water will be displaced along the chord as well as spanwise, which will flex the wings upward, providing much of the same shock absorption as the gear would on land. Also I think I would pop the doors open before impact to prevent them from jamming. I would expect a chute-ditching to be considerably softer than a chute-landing on terra firma.

  1. The other question is: Does the SR20 float?

Ok already,I can not take it! To chute or not to chute that was the question. Let it go! Time will tell what the outcome will be.Then we can beat the what if’s to death!..ed

I agree CAPS would probably be the best choice. But there is one problem that could make a water deployment a disastor! Being an x-sky diver, when we made water jumps, we would cut away from the chute 10’ off the deck to avoid getting tangled up with the chute. If the CAPS chute fell on the plane, it would be very difficult for anyone to get out!

AND…would-be survivors must free themselves from beneath the canopy during the (yet-to-be-determined)“float-time” - OR - the sinking hull with attached 'chute would ensnare those still beneath and either 1) pull plane/'chute/people-in-'chute underwater or 2) remain boyant because of “air-bubble” in 'chute - hull suspended underwater - but people enclosed in 'chute.

SO…need to GET OUT from under canopy before hull sinks (with raft/vests/etc.) AND/OR have a plan (read: knife) to get out as hull sinks.

LONG STORY SHORT: “If only they had CAPS”…

A friend of mine frequently hires a local charter service for biz transport… and admired the cautious & deliberate operations exhibited by the charter owner:pilot. Most recent biz trip was just 2 days ago with aprox 6hrs flight time… all quite normal. This morning we learned of an accident involving this aircraft. This is what happened & on reflection provides positive support

for Cirrus’ CAPS.

Part#135 charter operated Piper Saratoga

suffered catastrophic engine failure yesterday afternoon & ocean ditched off Kennebunkport ME

with 5 souls on board. Pilot was in ATC contact
and advised re engine loss & ditching.

Owner:Pilot + front seat passenger got out thru

(passenger side) front door; pilot swam around to assist opening (pilot side) rear door & helped
closest passenger out (his wife); two remaining passengers did not get out & are presumed to have gone down with aircraft. They were close enough to shore to have several private boats arrive quickly on the scene.

Loud explosion, followed by oil covering windscreen, points to piston or rod failure.

Structural failures were encountered on ditching
with very short “float time”.

Aircraft had completed Annual 2 weeks ago, had some 1200 hours on engine. Engine monitoring had previously been showing #2cylinder running hot,

testing revealed no reasons, switching cable wiring from probes still indicated #2 running hot.

Then excess temp condition seemed to go away with no further attention. (Faulty probe? High RPM use as normal operation mode? Frequent fast decents & shock cooling? Metal fatigue?)

Given the nature of sudden engine loss + no other choice but ocean ditching … CAPS deployment would have been “no brainer” decision & would be expected to result in slow & flat contact with the water & likely consequent increase in “float time” … and a chance for ALL to have exited.

CIRRUS: please continue expediting your mfg schedule & let me know when to come pickup my

aircraft with it’s 80# of CAPS Dead Weight to lug around … I do consider the CAPS to be part of the USEFUL LOAD.

OK, Let’s try some rationallity one more time:

  1. The SR20 will enter the water slightly nose down, (same as land) partially disapating the momentum via an acceleration (then decelleration) of angular velocity.

  2. If you have the aircraft are under control, then you have the option of landing without the parachute. (I would.) If you are worried about doing this safely (you only get one chance and few of us get to practice this), then get a seaplane rating or use the 'chute.

  3. Let’s say you do land without the chute, I’d bet $'s to donuts that the plane would invert as the gear hit. Now, all you are stuck with is opening the gull wing doors… I guess you could try to use the egress hammer, or open the doors prior to impact.

  4. If you choose to use the 'chute, and it does land on the aircraft, then just find a seem and follow it to the edge of the chute. It works every time. If it was a concern of mine, I’d pre-brief this to passengers frior to impact if I was flying over water.

  5. What manufacturer has timed an aircraft’s flotation time? What about damage? How will this affect the float time? None will do this, & I don’t know. I’ve seen a video of a 182 in the water - it didn’t last 30 seconds. If I was in that situation in any aircraft, I would prepare to be out within 5 seconds.

I think these discussion are great, because they get some of us to think about these things, but how relevant are they to the purchase decision or the benifits of the CAPS?

All of my comments are from military survival training, and other subsequent reading. If you’re worried about the subject, there are a few fine books on the subject and at least 2 good courses. They were discussed in an Aviation Safety article several months ago. If anyone is really interested in finding it, I’ll fax it to 'em if they e-mail me their fax nr.

Happy flying and remember the SR20 is not an amphibian.

Marty [#119 and lookinmg forward to January in Duluth!]

jatiii@aol.com