‘Miraculous’ escape as aircraft plummets out of sky in Blue Mountains
From one of the comments:
This is a thing? I didn’t know this was a thing. This is an awesome, people-saving thing, and we should have more of it.
The company making these parachutes for Cirrus has been in business since 1980. They’ve done a lot of work with making them more reliable and making them capable of landing larger and larger aircraft.
That said, they are NOT the first choice of action after an engine failure. They are intended for far more serious situations than that. Most aircraft, including the one in this incident, are quite capable of gliding and the pilot has far more control of where it lands by retaining control rather than popping the 'chute. They are intended for things like airframe collapse, where the pilot has pretty much already lost all control.
Once you pull the big red handle and deploy the parachute you are no longer a pilot, you are a passenger. You have NO control over where it lands, so you could potentially wind up in power lines or, in one case, the pilot made a successful touch down into a swamp where he was then attacked by crocodiles. If you’re over a landscape where a controlled, unpowered landing is not possible then yes, pull the handle.
They’re great for extreme emergencies, but people shouldn’t think of them as a first choice for getting out of a jam.
Cirrus and their safety chutes are quite well known in the flying community, and I’ve seen mentions in mainstream press.
IIRC, they have something of a bad rep among light plane pilots… there is just a bit of carelessness among Cirrus pilot’s because their think they’re safe.
I think it’s more a matter of Cirrus planes being purchased by pilots that, in some cases, have more money than skill. Or, as the saying goes, a fool and his money are soon flying more airplane than he can handle.
I’ve got a bit of Cirrus time as an instructor, and went through training at their plant in Duluth. The chute is definitely a last resort, and it’s not miraculous. It’s just physics.
You’re supposed to pull the safing pin, then re-cover the chute handle before flight. Then when your day has gone really bad, you rip off the cover and pull. But I know some owners who are so wary of the chute that they fly with the pin installed.
I haven’t visited the Blue Mountains, but it’s quite possible it fits this scenario.
I don’t hang out with pilots but this sounds like the kind of comments people were making back when seat belts were being introduced in cars. There was resistance to the idea because a lot of people seemed to think having seat belts was an admission you were a bad driver.
Heck, some folks are making the same argument right now about the (soon to be mandatory) rear view cameras in cars.
Not really - there are quite a few of these installed now. They showed up first among ultralight and homebuilt pilots, which are aircraft that are statistically more likely to have a catastrophic failure (such a failure is what inspired the founder of BRS to start developing such parachutes). Prior to such “recovery 'chutes” some of those pilots used to wear personal parachutes but the BRS requires less altitude to save your life. They are certainly a reasonable option for people flying over places where finding a safe landing spot is difficult between airports.
There has, though, always been the concern that some people will be inclined to pull the handle first instead of trying alternatives first. Landing under a parachute like this is survivable, it is not, however, gentle. People have sustained serious injuries despite being under a canopy. As I mentioned before, you have no control over where you land once you pop the 'chute, you could potentially land on top of other people, smash into a house, land in powerlines or in a place it will be difficult to extract you from. But a lot of the non-flying public seem to think this is a “get out of crash free” option.
The Cirrus is starting to gain a reputation similar to the V-tail Bonanza, which is referred to sometimes as “the doctor killer” for the number of MD’s who have met their end in it. A bunch of people who weren’t really up to handling that much airplane bought it and came to grief. Nothing wrong with the airplane, it was just a bad match between who was buying it and the machine. Likewise, the Cirrus is full of interesting bells and whistles, it’s a great little airplane, but it’s not really a beginner’s machine. There’s a notion (I don’t know if it’s actually true) that some wealthy, low-time pilots (think Cory Liddle) are buying it before they truly are ready to fly that much airplane. That’s a little off - just as there were doctors who safely flew a V-tail, there are low-time pilots who can handle a Cirrus safely - because if the Cirrus wasn’t available these same pilots would be buying and flying something else and may have the same problems regardless of what they fly. The on-board parachute might be lulling some people into complacency, it might not.
Does the NTSB still investigate a “safe” chute landing incident? Or only crashes?
I think it depends on the reason for pulling the 'chute. If I recall, there are some things like engine failures that are supposed to be reported even if they don’t result in a crash but it’s been long enough since I reviewed the regs I’m a bit fuzzy on that.
Am I the only person that finds this hysterically funny in a sort of horrible irony kind of way?
[plane goes out of control, pilot pulls big red handle]
“Whew… if not for this parachute, I’d be really screwed!”
[sometime later, when the plane lands in the swamp]
“Crocodiles? WTF?”
Well the local area was a bit iffy for landing even in ideal conditions (eg 500 metres clearance above the ground.)
The street was Sayers Street, Lawson, NSW.
There was land at a football field sized lawn (looks like cattle or horse grazing area.)
But the tall trees mean that you’d be at some height ,100 metres (yards) when you came in near it, and then you have to get the nose down to the ground before you run out of clear space ?? The local trees (eucalyptus - incidently its the oil which gives the mountains the colour - when seen from a distance. - such as Blue Gum) have evolved to be tall, to compete with other trees in the steep valley sides… So anyway, the streets are lined with these trees too, so streets are all dangerous.
BUT, the witnesses reported the plane went into a spiral… I guess he stalled without altitude to undo the stall. He would have been desperate to land, and tested out the ability to glide to a clearing he could see…
Good thing he was quick to pull the chute, he was gliding and stalled it, and he really was low if the witnesses could hear the engine cut out and see all this happening.
I recall years ago, probably the 1970s, my all time favorite fuckup story. A French guy decided to commit suicide by gassing himself in his car using the exhaust fumes. At some time during the process he decided to have one last cigarette. When he lit it the vapor ignited and he caught fire. This wasn’t his death of choice so he fled from the car and, to extinguish the flames, jumped in the nearby water tank. He drowned.
I didn’t know car exhaust was that flammable.
That would be a very tight space to land in, and I’m speaking as someone who once had to make an emergency landing in about the same space. The major difference was that I was over the Great Plains and thus could come down to the height of the corn in the fields before actually touching down, I didn’t have to deal with trees. With trees like that the best you could hope for would be to slow down sufficiently so you’d survive the impact with the trees at the far end of the field.
Landing on streets is a hazard, true. In addition to trees you can have additional hazards like powerlines, street lights, etc. Even small airplanes are wider than most streets. I know two pilots who have made emergency landings on streets. One of them lost part of a wing on the mailboxes along the road. The other, facing a choice between oncoming traffic and a light pole opted for the pole (we think - he has no recollection of the actual accident). They spent time removing parts of the airplane from him, and parts of him from the airplane. He spent six months in the hospital, had to have his leg rebuilt, and still walks with a limp.
He may have deliberately shut down the engine in preparation for deploying the parachute. The manuals state quite clearly you need to turn off the engine before pulling the handle. There are a couple of reasons for that, including the potential hazard of a powered prop slicing through the lines holding the parachute to the airplane, and the engine inducing sufficient speed or other forces to snap those lines or do something else to cause the parachute to fail to save you.
Anyhow, none of us have full information on what happened, but if he couldn’t maintain altitude and there were no safe landing areas then what the pilot did was entirely appropriate. There are other possibilities, but they’re a bit unlikely.
Or as I like to say, ‘more dollars than sense’.
It might have been before catalytic convertors and/or if one if the cylinders wasn’t firing. You can make flames come out of your exhaust by installing spark plugs in the tail pipes, or so I’ve been told.
I’ve never flown a Cirrus, but it strikes me as a slick, fast aircraft – much like the Bonanza. When I learned to fly, the aircraft used for training were the Cessna 150/152, Cessna 172, Piper PA-28 Cherokee, and the occasional Grumman AA1 or AA5 or an old Beechcraft Musketeer. Very casual observations indicate that Cirrus SR20s and Diamond DA40s are becoming popular at flight schools – but I don’t know if they’re used for primary training or advanced training.
When I was a child/adolescent/teenager, the ‘Big Three’ airplane makers had a successful business model: Induce aspiring pilots to train in their airplanes, and keep them in the brand as they advance. For example, most flight schools would have a Cessna 150 or a Piper Cherokee 140s. (I’ll skip Beechcraft, since they had a reputation for being ‘higher end’ airplanes.) Having learned in a Cessna 150 or Cherokee 140, the new pilot might choose one for his first airplane. When he wanted to buy a new airplane, he might buy a Cessna 172 or a Piper Cherokee 160. As the family grew and a more capable plane was needed, and as (as was expected) one’s financial situation continued to improve, there were the Cessna 182 and Cherokee 180, Cessna 210 and Piper Cherokee Six, and then other, faster, more complex single-engine and twin-engine airplanes after that.
After the collapse of General Aviation, other distractions that came into people’s lives starting in the '80s and '90s, and the tough employment market and recessions, people weren’t buying airplanes like they used to. For one thing, there weren’t that many being made. For another, Cessna and Beechcraft were bought up by conglomerates and I don’t know how many times Piper has gone bankrupt. ‘Cheap’ airplanes like the Skyhawk and Cherokee aren’t so cheap anymore. But the higher-end airplanes often seem to be a bargain. A prospective buyer might say, 'Hm. I can buy a 2004 Cessna 172 for $110,000, or I can get a mid-‘70s Bonanza in the same price range.’ Older Bonanzas are selling for about the same as a ten-year-newer Cessna Skyhawk. (Of course the trap is that you can get a ‘quarter-million dollar airplane’ for 50 grand, but you’re going to be operating and maintaining a ‘quarter-million dollar airplane’.) It can be very tempting for someone who just got his license, who brushes away the insurance costs, to choose a more challenging airplane that he’s ready to fly.
So where does the Cirrus fit in? As I said, it appears to be a fairly ‘slick’ airplane. OTOH, it has fixed gear and I’ve seen them in training use. Still might not be the best choice for a first plane, unless the pilot has plenty of hours renting them.