Cirrus Float Plane

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
The story from the link above. I like how the pilot was given credit for
avoiding the houses even though the chute was depolyed.

Do you have information other than what's in the story? Because nothing in
the quoted news story indicates that your interpretation of events is
correct.

For example, “A big splash was all I heard, then over the rooftops where I
heard the noise, there was a parachute”. If you notice, the witness heard
the splash and THEN saw the parachute. For all we know, the parachute was
deployed after, or immediately prior to, the crash and that the airplane was
in fact under positive control by the pilot up to the point of ensuring a
landing (crash or otherwise) in the retention pond.

Remember, it's a ballistic parachute. A rocket pulls the parachute away
from the airplane, and a witness on the ground could very well see the
parachute deployed, even if the airplane did not actually descend under the
parachute.

The fact that the pilot was in critical condition, and one passenger in
serious, further supports the idea that the airplane was not actually
descending under the parachute. After all, while no one has claimed that
the parachute results in a soft landing, critical injuries should be
extremely unlikely.

So, do you have other information that would contradict the Fire Chief's
statement that the pilot guided the airplane away from the houses? There's
nothing in the article that suggests that statement was wrong, and in fact
the rest of the article does support the statement, at least
circumstantially.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
The story from the link above. I like how the pilot was given credit for
avoiding the houses even though the chute was depolyed.

Do you have information other than what's in the story? Because nothing
in the quoted news story indicates that your interpretation of events is
correct.

For example, “A big splash was all I heard, then over the rooftops where I
heard the noise, there was a parachute”. If you notice, the witness heard
the splash and THEN saw the parachute. For all we know, the parachute was
deployed after, or immediately prior to, the crash and that the airplane
was in fact under positive control by the pilot up to the point of
ensuring a landing (crash or otherwise) in the retention pond.

Remember, it's a ballistic parachute. A rocket pulls the parachute away
from the airplane, and a witness on the ground could very well see the
parachute deployed, even if the airplane did not actually descend under
the parachute.

The fact that the pilot was in critical condition, and one passenger in
serious, further supports the idea that the airplane was not actually
descending under the parachute. After all, while no one has claimed that
the parachute results in a soft landing, critical injuries should be
extremely unlikely.

So, do you have other information that would contradict the Fire Chief's
statement that the pilot guided the airplane away from the houses?
There's nothing in the article that suggests that statement was wrong, and
in fact the rest of the article does support the statement, at least
circumstantially.

Pete


If he landed in that pond without the chute I doubt the plane would be as
intact as the photo makes it look. Also, are the chutes prone to deploying
after a crash. If so I wouldn't want to make many hard landings.

The quote about seeing the chute could have easily meant, "...there was a
parachute,IN THE WATER."

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
If he landed in that pond without the chute I doubt the plane would be as
intact as the photo makes it look.

Planes land in the water without significant apparent structural damage all
the time. They still wind up being a total loss, either because of internal
damage or water damage or something like that. But you can't tell from a
photo how an airplane wound up in the water.

Also, are the chutes prone to deploying after a crash. If so I wouldn't
want to make many hard landings.

The parachute doesn't deploy automatically. However, the pilot very well
could have attempted to deploy the parachute once over the water, but too
low to have much success. In addition, I'm sure that if it hasn't happened
yet, there's bound to eventually be a pilot who pulls the deployment handle
*after* the crash. After all, plenty of pilots who land gear-up attempt to
lower the gear (or at least move the gear handle) once the airplane has some
to a stop.

Again, the fact that the parachute was out doesn't mean that the pilot had
nothing to do with the airplane missing the house.

The quote about seeing the chute could have easily meant, "...there was a
parachute,IN THE WATER."

No, it couldn't have. The witness specifically says he saw the parachute
"over the rooftops where I heard the noise".

But even if your alternative quote was possible, that's not the question.
We're not talking about what it could have been. We're talking about your
claim to KNOW what happened, and to KNOW that the pilot was not involved in
missing the houses. Do you have information to support that claim, or don't
you?

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
The story from the link above. I like how the pilot was given credit for
avoiding the houses even though the chute was depolyed.

Do you have information other than what's in the story? Because nothing
in the quoted news story indicates that your interpretation of events is
correct.

For example, "A big splash was all I heard, then over the rooftops where I
heard the noise, there was a parachute". If you notice, the witness heard
the splash and THEN saw the parachute. For all we know, the parachute was
deployed after, or immediately prior to, the crash and that the airplane
was in fact under positive control by the pilot up to the point of
ensuring a landing (crash or otherwise) in the retention pond.

Remember, it's a ballistic parachute. A rocket pulls the parachute away
from the airplane, and a witness on the ground could very well see the
parachute deployed, even if the airplane did not actually descend under
the parachute.

The fact that the pilot was in critical condition, and one passenger in
serious, further supports the idea that the airplane was not actually
descending under the parachute. After all, while no one has claimed that
the parachute results in a soft landing, critical injuries should be
extremely unlikely.

So, do you have other information that would contradict the Fire Chief's
statement that the pilot guided the airplane away from the houses?
There's nothing in the article that suggests that statement was wrong, and
in fact the rest of the article does support the statement, at least
circumstantially.

Pete

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=5334340

Here is more, the pilot died. Sounds like the chute wasn't fully open and
working when the plane hit which explains why the cockpit is such a mess.

---------------------------------------
DW

"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in message
...
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=5334340

Here is more, the pilot died. Sounds like the chute wasn't fully open and
working when the plane hit which explains why the cockpit is such a mess.

From that link, it strongly suggests that the parachute was in fact deployed
only at the last minute. That would easily allow for the possibility of the
pilot having intentionally avoided the residences.

Of course, none of that explains why the pilot thought to use the parachute
at all, if the airplane was still reasonably controllable. A controlled
landing, even in the water, would likely have allowed everyone to survive,
including the pilot.

I'm not against the use of the BRS, but I have to admit this event appears
at least initially to be a good example of how having a BRS installed
complicates the emergency decision-making, and how it offers a new way for
the pilot to screw up that decision-making. Seems like the two valid
choices are "deploy the parachute with sufficient altitude for it to be
useful" or "fly the airplane and attempt an emergency landing", while the
pilot chose a third invalid choice of "attempt to deploy the parachute too
late, failing to provide a safe descent rate while preventing effective
control of the airplane during the landing".

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Of course, none of that explains why the pilot thought to use the parachute
at all, if the airplane was still reasonably controllable. A controlled
landing, even in the water, would likely have allowed everyone to survive,
including the pilot.

Air brake. (not wanting to land beyond a given point)

Peter Duniho wrote:
From that link, it strongly suggests that the parachute was in fact deployed
only at the last minute. That would easily allow for the possibility of the
pilot having intentionally avoided the residences.

Or he could've opened the chute, then avoided the residences.

Remember the gentleman up here in Nyack NY last year who pulled his
Cirrus chute? He then realized he was going to land in an oil tank
field, so he used the engine and rudder to "fly" his way, while under
the chute, over to a large pond instead.

But it does sound like this time the pilot deployed it too late.

Cheers, Kev

Kev wrote:
Remember the gentleman up here in Nyack NY last year who pulled his
Cirrus chute? He then realized he was going to land in an oil tank
field, so he used the engine and rudder to "fly" his way, while under
the chute, over to a large pond instead.

Ahhh, that reminds me also that the above pilot suffered severe
injuries landing in water under the chute. Apparently the Cirrus
design depends heavily on the landing gear absorbing a lot of the
deceleration shock, and that doesn't happen on water. So it could
very well be that their chute was deployed and they still got very bad
injuries when they hit the water.

Kev

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
[snip]
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=5334340
Here is more, the pilot died. Sounds like the chute wasn't fully open and
working when the plane hit which explains why the cockpit is such a mess.

From that link, it strongly suggests that the parachute was in fact
deployed only at the last minute. That would easily allow for the
possibility of the pilot having intentionally avoided the residences.

Of course, none of that explains why the pilot thought to use the
parachute at all, if the airplane was still reasonably controllable. A
controlled landing, even in the water, would likely have allowed everyone
to survive, including the pilot.


"Kehoe told Eyewitness News that his wife, Poolie, activated the plane's
parachute release. He said they bought the plane because of all of its
advanced safety features, including the parachute."

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=5336586
Friend: Pilot became medically incapacitated

[Aug 28, 2006 05:26 PM]
"Indianapolis - Robert Edesess, a local oral surgeon who died while piloting
a small plane Monday morning, may have become medically incapacitated before
the crash. According to a family friend, Edesess may have lost consciousness
before the plane crash-landed into a retention pond.

Edesess and a local attorney, Bruce Kehoe, bought the plane together just a
few days before the crash. The two had taken aviation classes together.

According to Kehoe, Edesess, 66, may have had some sort of medical event
which rendered him unconscious. Kehoe told Eyewitness News that his wife,
Poolie, activated the plane's parachute release. He said they bought the
plane because of all of its advanced safety features, including the
parachute. Kehoe said Poolie Edesess had been trained to use the parachute,
which could be seen floating in the water.

The Federal Aviation Administration will not give any statements at this
point. The NTSB is en route."


Montblack

It sounds like the pilot was unconscious and his wife was taking care of
things. She probably twas trying to awake her husband and just pulled the
shoot to late.
"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Peter Duniho" wrote)
[snip]
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=5334340
Here is more, the pilot died. Sounds like the chute wasn't fully open
and working when the plane hit which explains why the cockpit is such a
mess.

From that link, it strongly suggests that the parachute was in fact
deployed only at the last minute. That would easily allow for the
possibility of the pilot having intentionally avoided the residences.

Of course, none of that explains why the pilot thought to use the
parachute at all, if the airplane was still reasonably controllable. A
controlled landing, even in the water, would likely have allowed everyone
to survive, including the pilot.


"Kehoe told Eyewitness News that his wife, Poolie, activated the plane's
parachute release. He said they bought the plane because of all of its
advanced safety features, including the parachute."

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=5336586
Friend: Pilot became medically incapacitated

[Aug 28, 2006 05:26 PM]
"Indianapolis - Robert Edesess, a local oral surgeon who died while
piloting a small plane Monday morning, may have become medically
incapacitated before the crash. According to a family friend, Edesess may
have lost consciousness before the plane crash-landed into a retention
pond.

Edesess and a local attorney, Bruce Kehoe, bought the plane together just
a few days before the crash. The two had taken aviation classes together.

According to Kehoe, Edesess, 66, may have had some sort of medical event
which rendered him unconscious. Kehoe told Eyewitness News that his wife,
Poolie, activated the plane's parachute release. He said they bought the
plane because of all of its advanced safety features, including the
parachute. Kehoe said Poolie Edesess had been trained to use the
parachute, which could be seen floating in the water.

The Federal Aviation Administration will not give any statements at this
point. The NTSB is en route."


Montblack