Ballistic Recovery System

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

The Genesis-2 was designed to incorporate a Ballistic Recovery System. My ship and at least one other US Genesis-2 is flying with a BRS installed. I regularly monitor the NTSB accident reports for glider accidents and this month I see 3 Cirrus Design Group accidents. The Cirrus is a power aircraft, but is of interest to me because they come from the factory with a BRS installed. Well, January has seen 3 successful deployments of Cirrus ballistic recovery systems. Two at high altitude and one on final at 400 feet! All from loss of engine power. One deployment occurred in 30 knot ground wind and pilot and passenger had to make a quick exit of the ship because it was being drug across the ground by its fully inflated chute. There is no way to jettison the chute.
JJ

[WAVEGURU]

> JJ

They couldn't make the runway from 400ft on final??? Could you post a link to the reports?

Boggs

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:53:15 AM UTC-8, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> The Genesis-2 was designed to incorporate a Ballistic Recovery System. My ship and at least one other US Genesis-2 is flying with a BRS installed. I regularly monitor the NTSB accident reports for glider accidents and this month I see 3 Cirrus Design Group accidents. The Cirrus is a power aircraft, but is of interest to me because they come from the factory with a BRS installed. Well, January has seen 3 successful deployments of Cirrus ballistic recovery systems. Two at high altitude and one on final at 400 feet! All from loss of engine power. One deployment occurred in 30 knot ground wind and pilot and passenger had to make a quick exit of the ship because it was being drug across the ground by its fully inflated chute. There is no way to jettison the chute.
>
> JJ

400' and the first reaction of the pilot is to "pop the chute"? What kind of training do these Cirrus Pilots get on the BRS? How 'bout "lower the nose, watch your airspeed and take what you got" and land in the golf course (they surround most general aviation airports.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:27:36 AM UTC-6, Waveguru wrote:
> > JJ They couldn't make the runway from 400ft on final??? Could you post a link to the reports? Boggs

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140105X43412&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140107X12103&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140109X92051&key=1

400 feet three miles out. Engine not responding to throttle, and not making power. Think you could make it in a Cirrus that was not made by Schempp-Hirth? Sounds to me like he had troubles and didn't properly adjust a long ways back. And, take a look at that airport on a three mile final to runway 29.

Not going to defend or criticise his final action. Just seems like so many power pilots count on the engine running to get them to the destination once on final. And when it doesn't keep running, well, it is not good for anyone.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:44:59 AM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:27:36 AM UTC-6, Waveguru wrote:
>
> > > JJ They couldn't make the runway from 400ft on final??? Could you post a link to the reports? Boggs
>
>
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140105X43412&key=1
>
>
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140107X12103&key=1
>
>
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140109X92051&key=1
>
>
>
> 400 feet three miles out. Engine not responding to throttle, and not making power. Think you could make it in a Cirrus that was not made by Schempp-Hirth? Sounds to me like he had troubles and didn't properly adjust a long ways back. And, take a look at that airport on a three mile final to runway 29.
>
>
>
> Not going to defend or criticise his final action. Just seems like so many power pilots count on the engine running to get them to the destination once on final. And when it doesn't keep running, well, it is not good for anyone.

>>400 feet three miles out.<<< On a 3 degree glidslope? I doubt it. 400' is more like a 1/4mile final.

[[email protected]]

I agree. I looked at all 3 reports; one sounds like a real engine failure
(severe vibrations) in IMC. They gave it a valid try -- flew an ILS approach --
and gave up at 1000' AGL when they couldn't maintain the glideslope. The others,
what were they thinking? The one guy was trying a straight-in approach from
5 miles out. We really hated those types when we flew off a paved runway.
The third was at 9000 feet! The glide range had to be something approaching
20 miles from up there! I can't believe there wasn't a runway around somewhere!

Matt

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 3:12:34 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>>400 feet three miles out.<<< On a 3 degree glidslope? I doubt it. 400' is more like a 1/4mile final.

400 feet altitude, 3 degree glide slope is 1.44 miles out. But, why would you set half flap when still 5 miles out? Don't have any Cirrus time, so I don't know what they teach you for that plane. But, at 100 knots, and 5 miles, you have got time to do several things. Not really in danger of overflying the airport unless really high. And since he was well below glideslope at 3 miles, well, he wasn't any too high on his approach...

The one in France, I assume he flew through the valley and not over the mountains. So, he should have had good altitude and time to think. Unclear as to altitude of pulling the chute.

Steve

[AJM]

If you have the Google Earth plugin (or want to install it) you can see the approach to Runway 29 here:

http://www.aircraft.io/airport/W22/

(Click on Advanced Settings to configure 3 miles out with a 1.5 degree slope).

The airport is up on a mesa, so if the pilot was 400 ft AGL 3 miles out, that may have been even lower relative to the runway.

AM

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 4:05:46 PM UTC-6, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 3:12:34 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>
> >>400 feet three miles out.<<< On a 3 degree glidslope? I doubt it. 400' is more like a 1/4mile final.
>
>
>
> 400 feet altitude, 3 degree glide slope is 1.44 miles out. But, why would you set half flap when still 5 miles out? Don't have any Cirrus time, so I don't know what they teach you for that plane. But, at 100 knots, and 5 miles, you have got time to do several things. Not really in danger of overflying the airport unless really high. And since he was well below glideslope at 3 miles, well, he wasn't any too high on his approach...
>
>
>
> The one in France, I assume he flew through the valley and not over the mountains. So, he should have had good altitude and time to think. Unclear as to altitude of pulling the chute.
>
>
>
> Steve

[Dan Marotta]

At Moriarty, NM, we always see power pilots flying what we charitably call
"bomber patterns" (circuits for you Limeys). When I fly the tow plane, I'm
always within gliding distance of the runway - there's just no reason to be
that far away unless you're trying to build flight time. Plus, those big
patterns really disrupt glider flying.

I think the BRS system is a great invention but it does need some thought in
its use. We're considering a Pipistrel Sinus (used) which had a BRS system
installed. I think it's great, though I was somewhat taken aback by the
repack cost. But, since it's over a much longer period than a personal
chute, the cost is about the same as all the six-month repacks.

And finally, did you all see the video of the Cirrus (I think it was), that
collided with the tow line at Boulder, CO several years back? He deployed
his BRS system and then burned to death as the flaming plane settled slowly
to the ground. Not pretty.


> wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:53:15 AM UTC-8, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> The Genesis-2 was designed to incorporate a Ballistic Recovery System. My
> ship and at least one other US Genesis-2 is flying with a BRS installed. I
> regularly monitor the NTSB accident reports for glider accidents and this
> month I see 3 Cirrus Design Group accidents. The Cirrus is a power
> aircraft, but is of interest to me because they come from the factory with
> a BRS installed. Well, January has seen 3 successful deployments of Cirrus
> ballistic recovery systems. Two at high altitude and one on final at 400
> feet! All from loss of engine power. One deployment occurred in 30 knot
> ground wind and pilot and passenger had to make a quick exit of the ship
> because it was being drug across the ground by its fully inflated chute.
> There is no way to jettison the chute.
>
> JJ

400' and the first reaction of the pilot is to "pop the chute"? What kind
of training do these Cirrus Pilots get on the BRS? How 'bout "lower the
nose, watch your airspeed and take what you got" and land in the golf course
(they surround most general aviation airports.

[[email protected]]

I regularly give demo rides in a Pipistrel Sinus to power pilots.
I always shut the engine off and feather the prop. Generally they freak out.. They have never a real engine out glide let alone a full landing. The body motions when in the landing pattern are fun to watch. However after landing and turning off the runway they love it, can't believe you can do that without a motor running.

Talking with the average power pilot and sooner or later you will hear something like this "if the engine quits you are dead" With that mind set it is no wonder there are so many ugly crashes in power planes.

Do your power pilot friends a favor, take them of a glider ride, in calm conditions, let them fly the glider, even fly the pattern and maybe land it. One day that experience just might save them.

Robert Mudd

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:53:54 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:

> At Moriarty, NM, we always see power pilots flying what we charitably
> call "bomber patterns" (circuits for you Limeys). When I fly the tow
> plane, I'm always within gliding distance of the runway - there's just
> no reason to be that far away unless you're trying to build flight time.
> Plus, those big patterns really disrupt glider flying.
>
I think the most elegant solution to that problem I've seen was the
concentric traffic arrangement used at Boulder Municipal. The GA pilots
used their regular large pattern. Gliders entered the circuit from the
south over the airport buildings and flew a smaller pattern inside the
GA people, landing on a second parallel runway north of the main (GA)
one, while the tugs flew a similar pattern to gliders, but smaller and
inside them, landing on a narrow runway between the other two. It worked
well and showed no apparent traffic conflicts. That was in 2001, but I
assume the patterns are still the same, though as of last year (Google
Earth imagery from Oct 2013) the middle runway looks like it hasn't been
used for a long time.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Tony[_5_]]

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:53:54 PM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> At Moriarty, NM, we always see power pilots flying what we charitably call
>
> "bomber patterns" (circuits for you Limeys). When I fly the tow plane, I'm
>
> always within gliding distance of the runway - there's just no reason to be
>
> that far away unless you're trying to build flight time. Plus, those big
>
> patterns really disrupt glider flying.
>
>
>
> I think the BRS system is a great invention but it does need some thought in
>
> its use. We're considering a Pipistrel Sinus (used) which had a BRS system
>
> installed. I think it's great, though I was somewhat taken aback by the
>
> repack cost. But, since it's over a much longer period than a personal
>
> chute, the cost is about the same as all the six-month repacks.
>
>
>
> And finally, did you all see the video of the Cirrus (I think it was), that
>
> collided with the tow line at Boulder, CO several years back? He deployed
>
> his BRS system and then burned to death as the flaming plane settled slowly
>
> to the ground. Not pretty.
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:53:15 AM UTC-8, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>
> > The Genesis-2 was designed to incorporate a Ballistic Recovery System. My
>
> > ship and at least one other US Genesis-2 is flying with a BRS installed.. I
>
> > regularly monitor the NTSB accident reports for glider accidents and this
>
> > month I see 3 Cirrus Design Group accidents. The Cirrus is a power
>
> > aircraft, but is of interest to me because they come from the factory with
>
> > a BRS installed. Well, January has seen 3 successful deployments of Cirrus
>
> > ballistic recovery systems. Two at high altitude and one on final at 400
>
> > feet! All from loss of engine power. One deployment occurred in 30 knot
>
> > ground wind and pilot and passenger had to make a quick exit of the ship
>
> > because it was being drug across the ground by its fully inflated chute..
>
> > There is no way to jettison the chute.
>
> >
>
> > JJ
>
>
>
> 400' and the first reaction of the pilot is to "pop the chute"? What kind
>
> of training do these Cirrus Pilots get on the BRS? How 'bout "lower the
>
> nose, watch your airspeed and take what you got" and land in the golf course
>
> (they surround most general aviation airports.

the parachute will deploy most of the time when the structural integrity of the cabin is compromised. relative motion between the location of the handle and the location of the parachute is all that matters, whether the handle moves or the airframe moves. a lot of landing accidents in cirri result in fireballs. it seems that they are a result of the wings breaking open which spews fuel everywhere, just looking for an ignition source, right around the time that the rocket gets deployed and kablooie. i remember seeing the video of the fireball under parachute from the boulder accident and wondered if the deployment was intentional or not. either way what an awful way to die.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Steve Leonard wrote, On 1/29/2014 8:44 AM:
> Not going to defend or criticise his final action. Just seems like
> so many power pilots count on the engine running to get them to the
> destination once on final. And when it doesn't keep running, well,
> it is not good for anyone.

My understanding is most of them do not always fly within reach of a
safe landing for most of the flight, so why make an exception for the
approach to a landing?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

AJM wrote, On 1/29/2014 2:49 PM:
> The airport is up on a mesa, so if the pilot was 400 ft AGL 3 miles
> out, that may have been even lower relative to the runway.

And even if he was 400 agl to the airport, that's 15480'/400' = 39.6
glide ratio required. That's totally unacceptable in my ASH 26 E,
nominally 50:1, and impossible in a Cirrus airplane. And you probably
don't want to find out you aren't making it when you are 200' high, as
that may be too low to guarantee a safe deployment.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[CJ[_3_]]

Agreed, when I was checked out on the Cirrus SR22 I noted a glide ratio of
8-9:1. Very similar to a Cessna 210, another perfectly glidable aeroplane
with poor glide performance. Following engine failures, pilots have a
mental model of their glide range from previous types, wind up short, try
raising the nose to stretch the glide and...well you know how that ends :(


Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> AJM wrote, On 1/29/2014 2:49 PM:
>> The airport is up on a mesa, so if the pilot was 400 ft AGL 3 miles
>> out, that may have been even lower relative to the runway.
>
> And even if he was 400 agl to the airport, that's 15480'/400' = 39.6
> glide ratio required. That's totally unacceptable in my ASH 26 E,
> nominally 50:1, and impossible in a Cirrus airplane. And you probably
> don't want to find out you aren't making it when you are 200' high, as
> that may be too low to guarantee a safe deployment.

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > CJ > writes:
>Agreed, when I was checked out on the Cirrus SR22 I noted a glide ratio of
>8-9:1. Very similar to a Cessna 210, another perfectly glidable aeroplane
>with poor glide performance. Following engine failures, pilots have a
>mental model of their glide range from previous types, wind up short, try
>raising the nose to stretch the glide and...well you know how that ends :(

From previous types? The glide ratio of most common light aircraft is in
the 8:1 to 10:1 range. I doubt that their previous types much exceed the
SR22's glide ratio.

Not having any speed to fly information other than "engine out xx ktas"
might limit their getting optimal glide performance, but a real engine
failure is not the best time to be trying to calculate best glide speed
for existing weight and speed to fly for current winds to their target.

I expect that most readers of this group know how weight affects their
minimum sink airspeed and best glide airspeeds; as well as how winds and
rising or sinking air affect the best speed for them to be flying.

I hope they won't be experimenting with the effects if the engine quits
in a light airplane, in conditions where they probably do not know the air
motion particularly accurately.

( Does anyone here know the V min sink and V best glide for a Cessna 172N
at 2300 lbs weight; does anyone have a reasonably good polar plot for it?
I got curious, looked online, didn't find the info. It would not surprise
me if the 65 ktas in the POH is padded a bit to ensure that the suddenly
unpowered pilot is less likely to run out of speed on approach, but I do not
know this. )

Alan

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:32:41 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> My understanding is most of them do not always fly within reach of a safe landing for most of the flight, so why make an exception for the approach to a landing? -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)

Because you can, Eric.

[CJ[_3_]]

If you use a modern 2-seat trainer such as a DA20 (11:1) and then jump in a
Cirrus (8.5:1) it's a a 22% difference in glide range. Hardly
inconsequential. With a 15kt difference in best glide air speeds, it also
requires an attitude far lower than they are used to and are very hesitant
to set (it takes training and proficiency for a powered pilot to overcome
the urge to raise the nose after an engine failure. Not unlike a glider
pilot trying to force the nose round with rudder in an overshot final turn;
instinct trumps logic). Powered manufacturers don't publish min sink
speeds as they are irrelevant. They want you to get to a landable field,
period. There is no need for them to pad the speeds as approach is flown
with flaps with the resultant greater stall margin and best L/D occurs far
enough away from the back of the drag curve for this to not be a
consideration, I like your lateral thinking though.

CJ

Alan > wrote:
> In article
> > CJ >
> writes:
>> Agreed, when I was checked out on the Cirrus SR22 I noted a glide ratio of
>> 8-9:1. Very similar to a Cessna 210, another perfectly glidable aeroplane
>> with poor glide performance. Following engine failures, pilots have a
>> mental model of their glide range from previous types, wind up short, try
>> raising the nose to stretch the glide and...well you know how that ends :(
>
> From previous types? The glide ratio of most common light aircraft is in
> the 8:1 to 10:1 range. I doubt that their previous types much exceed the
> SR22's glide ratio.
>
> Not having any speed to fly information other than "engine out xx ktas"
> might limit their getting optimal glide performance, but a real engine
> failure is not the best time to be trying to calculate best glide speed
> for existing weight and speed to fly for current winds to their target.
>
> I expect that most readers of this group know how weight affects their
> minimum sink airspeed and best glide airspeeds; as well as how winds and
> rising or sinking air affect the best speed for them to be flying.
>
> I hope they won't be experimenting with the effects if the engine quits
> in a light airplane, in conditions where they probably do not know the air
> motion particularly accurately.
>
> ( Does anyone here know the V min sink and V best glide for a Cessna 172N
> at 2300 lbs weight; does anyone have a reasonably good polar plot for it?
> I got curious, looked online, didn't find the info. It would not surprise
> me if the 65 ktas in the POH is padded a bit to ensure that the suddenly
> unpowered pilot is less likely to run out of speed on approach, but I do not
> know this. )
>
> Alan

[Dan Marotta]

That's true, but my experience and training is that most engine failures
occur with power changes so why not be closer in before reducing power for
final?


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Leonard wrote, On 1/29/2014 8:44 AM:
<snip>
>
> My understanding is most of them do not always fly within reach of a safe
> landing for most of the flight, so why make an exception for the approach
> to a landing?
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)

[Dan Marotta]

At 800' AGL with the numbers passing under my leading edge, I reduce power
and begin my 180 decending turn to final. I roll out on final at 200' over
the numbers. Pretty much the same pattern in my glider. Straight-ins are
for jets.


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> AJM wrote, On 1/29/2014 2:49 PM:
>> The airport is up on a mesa, so if the pilot was 400 ft AGL 3 miles
>> out, that may have been even lower relative to the runway.
>
> And even if he was 400 agl to the airport, that's 15480'/400' = 39.6 glide
> ratio required. That's totally unacceptable in my ASH 26 E, nominally
> 50:1, and impossible in a Cirrus airplane. And you probably don't want to
> find out you aren't making it when you are 200' high, as that may be too
> low to guarantee a safe deployment.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)

[Dan Marotta]

From my initial Air Force flight training in the T-41 (C-172 with 180 hp)
step 1 of the emergency procedure was (verbatim) GLIDE - Establish 80 mph.

I don't remember the rest but 80 mph (~70 KIAS) is a good place to start.


"Alan" > wrote in message
...
> In article >
> CJ > writes:
>>Agreed, when I was checked out on the Cirrus SR22 I noted a glide ratio of
>>8-9:1. Very similar to a Cessna 210, another perfectly glidable aeroplane
>>with poor glide performance. Following engine failures, pilots have a
>>mental model of their glide range from previous types, wind up short, try
>>raising the nose to stretch the glide and...well you know how that ends :(
>
> From previous types? The glide ratio of most common light aircraft is in
> the 8:1 to 10:1 range. I doubt that their previous types much exceed the
> SR22's glide ratio.
>
> Not having any speed to fly information other than "engine out xx ktas"
> might limit their getting optimal glide performance, but a real engine
> failure is not the best time to be trying to calculate best glide speed
> for existing weight and speed to fly for current winds to their target.
>
> I expect that most readers of this group know how weight affects their
> minimum sink airspeed and best glide airspeeds; as well as how winds and
> rising or sinking air affect the best speed for them to be flying.
>
> I hope they won't be experimenting with the effects if the engine quits
> in a light airplane, in conditions where they probably do not know the air
> motion particularly accurately.
>
> ( Does anyone here know the V min sink and V best glide for a Cessna 172N
> at 2300 lbs weight; does anyone have a reasonably good polar plot for it?
> I got curious, looked online, didn't find the info. It would not surprise
> me if the 65 ktas in the POH is padded a bit to ensure that the suddenly
> unpowered pilot is less likely to run out of speed on approach, but I do
> not
> know this. )
>
> Alan

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Steve Leonard wrote, On 1/31/2014 7:14 AM:
> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:32:41 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:
>> My understanding is most of them do not always fly within reach of
>> a safe landing for most of the flight, so why make an exception for
>> the approach to a landing? -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State,
>> USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
>
> Because you can, Eric.

Well, I can and do. Or was that a plural "you"?

The power pilots can do it for the rest of the flight, but don't, so why
would it be more prudent to do it on final than anywhere else?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

An interesting idea. Do the statistics bear that out? Or maybe engine
failures with a safe landing on the airport don't get reported?

Dan Marotta wrote, On 1/31/2014 10:12 AM:
> That's true, but my experience and training is that most engine failures
> occur with power changes so why not be closer in before reducing power
> for final?
>
>
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Steve Leonard wrote, On 1/29/2014 8:44 AM:
> <snip>
>>
>> My understanding is most of them do not always fly within reach of a
>> safe landing for most of the flight, so why make an exception for the
>> approach to a landing?
>>
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>> email me)
>


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Dan Marotta]

Good question, Eric. I was only repeating what I was taught in early
training. Frankly I find it easy to believe that a failure could be more
likely on a power reduction from takeoff to climb power than during level
cruise. I'm not as convinced that reducing power from cruise to final
approach settings is any more likely to result in failure, but I've
personally had a failure of the engine to respond to throttle up in the
pattern. Had I been on a long final I would have landed short. As it was,
it was simply an abbreviated downwind and land at mid field.


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> An interesting idea. Do the statistics bear that out? Or maybe engine
> failures with a safe landing on the airport don't get reported?
>
> Dan Marotta wrote, On 1/31/2014 10:12 AM:
>> That's true, but my experience and training is that most engine failures
>> occur with power changes so why not be closer in before reducing power
>> for final?
>>
>>
>> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Steve Leonard wrote, On 1/29/2014 8:44 AM:
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> My understanding is most of them do not always fly within reach of a
>>> safe landing for most of the flight, so why make an exception for the
>>> approach to a landing?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>>> email me)
>>
>
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email
> me)

[Greg O'Hagan]

First UK deployment I think.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Cirrus%20SR22,%20N936CT%2012-13.pdf

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Perhaps the culprit could be carb icing. I sort of recall being taught
to add carb heat for the landing, but that was 30 years ago.

Dan Marotta wrote, On 2/1/2014 9:04 AM:
> Good question, Eric. I was only repeating what I was taught in early
> training. Frankly I find it easy to believe that a failure could be
> more likely on a power reduction from takeoff to climb power than during
> level cruise. I'm not as convinced that reducing power from cruise to
> final approach settings is any more likely to result in failure, but
> I've personally had a failure of the engine to respond to throttle up in
> the pattern. Had I been on a long final I would have landed short. As
> it was, it was simply an abbreviated downwind and land at mid field.
>
>
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>> An interesting idea. Do the statistics bear that out? Or maybe engine
>> failures with a safe landing on the airport don't get reported?
>>
>> Dan Marotta wrote, On 1/31/2014 10:12 AM:
>>> That's true, but my experience and training is that most engine failures
>>> occur with power changes so why not be closer in before reducing power
>>> for final?
>>>
>>>
>>> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Steve Leonard wrote, On 1/29/2014 8:44 AM:
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is most of them do not always fly within reach of a
>>>> safe landing for most of the flight, so why make an exception for the
>>>> approach to a landing?


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Dan Marotta]

That's true, though I've only experienced carb icing in cruise flight. The
incident I mentioned in the pattern was a failure of the outer shield on the
mixture cable which allowed the mixture to slip *almost* to cutoff. The
engine continued to run, but would not advance above idle.

I've had two other failures (in civil aircraft, we won't talk military),
both of which involved lubrication. In one case the oil pump drive shaft
sheared resulting in zero oil pressure; the other was a blown front seal
which coated the windscreen with oil and filled the cockpit with smoke. In
both cases I had gliders on the other end of the rope, waved them off, and
landed dead stick on the airport.

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Perhaps the culprit could be carb icing. I sort of recall being taught to
> add carb heat for the landing, but that was 30 years ago.
>
> Dan Marotta wrote, On 2/1/2014 9:04 AM:
>> Good question, Eric. I was only repeating what I was taught in early
>> training. Frankly I find it easy to believe that a failure could be
>> more likely on a power reduction from takeoff to climb power than during
>> level cruise. I'm not as convinced that reducing power from cruise to
>> final approach settings is any more likely to result in failure, but
>> I've personally had a failure of the engine to respond to throttle up in
>> the pattern. Had I been on a long final I would have landed short. As
>> it was, it was simply an abbreviated downwind and land at mid field.
>>
>>
>> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> An interesting idea. Do the statistics bear that out? Or maybe engine
>>> failures with a safe landing on the airport don't get reported?
>>>
>>> Dan Marotta wrote, On 1/31/2014 10:12 AM:
>>>> That's true, but my experience and training is that most engine
>>>> failures
>>>> occur with power changes so why not be closer in before reducing power
>>>> for final?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Steve Leonard wrote, On 1/29/2014 8:44 AM:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding is most of them do not always fly within reach of a
>>>>> safe landing for most of the flight, so why make an exception for the
>>>>> approach to a landing?
>
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email
> me)

[SoaringXCellence]

The Cirrus Designs airplanes (SR20 & SR22) both are fitted with fuel-injected engines. No carb ice. Induction icing in that particular set of designs is mitigated by having automatic "suck-in" doors in the inductions system that open if the filter or forward intakes are blocked.

Mike

PS, I have over 900 hours in the two designs.

[Sean F (F2)]

These Ballistic Recovery Systems's are great things. And they are a big part of the purchase decision for many owners. I have a bunch of time in a SR22 and have always liked having the red handle just encase. That said there is a pretty narrow decision window in terms of maximum deployment airspeed and normal cruising speeds. Has to be deployed under 140 KIAS. That is not a long time to make a decision if you have departed controlled flight. Essentially, you must be in control of the airplane when you pull the cord or its probably going to fail. That said, I am surprised that more manufacturers, including gliders, have not taken up the technology.

The Frech guy who popped it at 9k when the engine quit sounds a little odd to me. Should have easily been able to make an airport from 9k, don't you think?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066691/Plane-Crash-near-Chicagos-Crystal-Lake-kills-businessman-Ray-Harris-2-daughters.html

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=da260970-3974-400f-95b1-c095ab971053

Demonstrated Deployment Parameters
400' (561' G5*) - Demonstrated loss of altitude from a straight and level CAPS deployment
920' (1081' G5*) - Demonstrated loss of altitude from a 1 turn spin
135 KIAS - VPD (SR20 G1/G2) - Maximum demonstrated deployment speed for CAPS
133 KIAS - VPD (SR20 G3/SR22/SR22T) - Maximum demonstrated deployment speed for CAPS
140 KIAS - VPD (SR22/SR22TG5) - Maximum demonstrated deployment speed for CAPS
*Demonstrated parameters for the G5 were calculated from G5 parachute drop tests simulating a 3,600 lbs airplane

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:53:15 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> The Genesis-2 was designed to incorporate a Ballistic Recovery System. My ship and at least one other US Genesis-2 is flying with a BRS installed. I regularly monitor the NTSB accident reports for glider accidents and this month I see 3 Cirrus Design Group accidents. The Cirrus is a power aircraft, but is of interest to me because they come from the factory with a BRS installed. Well, January has seen 3 successful deployments of Cirrus ballistic recovery systems. Two at high altitude and one on final at 400 feet! All from loss of engine power. One deployment occurred in 30 knot ground wind and pilot and passenger had to make a quick exit of the ship because it was being drug across the ground by its fully inflated chute. There is no way to jettison the chute.
>
> JJ

[JS]

In control? Somehow I'm missing the point.
Jim

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:24:33 PM UTC-8, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Essentially, you must be in control of the airplane when you pull the cord or its probably going to fail.

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:07:21 PM UTC-8, JS wrote:
> In control? Somehow I'm missing the point.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:24:33 PM UTC-8, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> > Essentially, you must be in control of the airplane when you pull the cord or its probably going to fail.

I believe Sean's point is the cruise speed and max deployment speed can be pretty close in the RS-22 giving the pilot very little time to decide to use the BRS. In a sailplane where cruise speed would normally be 60 to 90 knots, and max deployment speed of 130 should allow more time to make the decision and pull the handle. My main concerns are mid-air and medical condition. I believe a BRS would have saved Chris O'Callaghan in the Uvalde mid-air and Dick Johnson's apparent heart attack.
I have come close to a head-on collisiom in the pattern. If we had hit, I believe the BRS would have been my only chance to survive.
Cheers,
JJ

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 10:24:33 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> The French guy who popped it at 9k when the engine quit sounds a little odd to me. Should have easily been able to make an airport from 9k, don't you think?

Unless you have more information than what is in the NTSB link, we do not know at what altitude the pilot pulled the handle. We are told he was cruising at 9,000 feet, the engine lost power, he pulled the chute, and descended to the ground. Does not say he pulled the chute immediately upon loss of power. Also, 0700 UTC on January 6 in Grenoble, France, would be, if I am doing the corrections properly, 8 AM local. Sunrise, according to my internet search would be at approximately 8:15 AM local time. So, not totally dark but certainly not middle of the day. May not have had a clear picture of what was below.

As many have said, "NTSB reports leave a LOT to the imagination."

Steve

[Sean F (F2)]

Good points. Perhaps, perhaps not ;-).

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 2:29:40 PM UTC-5, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 10:24:33 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> > The French guy who popped it at 9k when the engine quit sounds a little odd to me. Should have easily been able to make an airport from 9k, don't you think?
>
>
>
> Unless you have more information than what is in the NTSB link, we do not know at what altitude the pilot pulled the handle. We are told he was cruising at 9,000 feet, the engine lost power, he pulled the chute, and descended to the ground. Does not say he pulled the chute immediately upon loss of power. Also, 0700 UTC on January 6 in Grenoble, France, would be, if I am doing the corrections properly, 8 AM local. Sunrise, according to my internet search would be at approximately 8:15 AM local time. So, not totally dark but certainly not middle of the day. May not have had a clear picture of what was below.
>
>
>
> As many have said, "NTSB reports leave a LOT to the imagination."
>
>
>
> Steve