Cirrus Lands via Parachute in Nantucket

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Judah wrote:
Owen Rogers wrote in
:
Looks like another save for BRS and Cirrus.

Apparently a Cirrus was attempting to land ACK VFR last night when they
ran into weather (fog and low visibility after sunset on the island are
common in the summer). They pulled the Ballistic Recovery System
parachute about 5 miles northeast of ACK.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just turn around?

That's what I was thinking. There is either much more to this story or
this was one dumb pilot. I'm hoping it is the former.

He is alive so he's not to dumb. He has money so who cares about the plane.

Matt

Aluckyguess wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Judah wrote:

Owen Rogers wrote in
:

Looks like another save for BRS and Cirrus.

Apparently a Cirrus was attempting to land ACK VFR last night when they
ran into weather (fog and low visibility after sunset on the island are
common in the summer). They pulled the Ballistic Recovery System
parachute about 5 miles northeast of ACK.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just turn around?

That's what I was thinking. There is either much more to this story or
this was one dumb pilot. I'm hoping it is the former.


He is alive so he's not to dumb. He has money so who cares about the plane.
More money than brains? Most pilots have heard of diversion to another
airport in case of bad weather or other person. The Pilot Examiner would
have made sure that he had considered alternates for the cross country
part of the check ride. He might have an interesting time explaining to
his insurance company also. They might not want to write him another
policy again (if this story is as stated)!




Matt

"James" wrote in message
...


Aluckyguess wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Judah wrote:

Owen Rogers wrote in
:

Looks like another save for BRS and Cirrus.

Apparently a Cirrus was attempting to land ACK VFR last night when they
ran into weather (fog and low visibility after sunset on the island are
common in the summer). They pulled the Ballistic Recovery System
parachute about 5 miles northeast of ACK.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just turn around?

That's what I was thinking. There is either much more to this story or
this was one dumb pilot. I'm hoping it is the former.


He is alive so he's not to dumb. He has money so who cares about the
plane.
More money than brains? Most pilots have heard of diversion to another
airport in case of bad weather or other person. The Pilot Examiner would
have made sure that he had considered alternates for the cross country
part of the check ride. He might have an interesting time explaining to
his insurance company also. They might not want to write him another
policy again (if this story is as stated)!


I find it very hard to speculate about this particular episode until we know
the airplane's fuel state, the weather at reachable fields, the conditions
in which the aircraft was flying, or the training level of the pilot.

For example, if the pilot wasn't IFR trained, he might have been in a
situation where he wasn't confident of keeping the airplane right side up.
In that situation, popping the chute too early is much better than popping
it too late.

Another example is that the weather may have gone down, leaving him trapped
on top without sufficient fuel to reach an airport in better conditions.

Every time someone uses the chute on a Cirrus, we get people second guessing
the decision. There is only one person in the world qualified to make the
decision, and that's the guy or gal in the left seat when the decision is
made.

KB

Kyle,

There is only one person in the world qualified to make the
decision, and that's the guy or gal in the left seat when the decision is
made.


Exactly.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Aug 19, 10:53 am, "Kyle Boatright" wrote:
I find it very hard to speculate about this particular episode until we know
the airplane's fuel state, the weather at reachable fields, the conditions
in which the aircraft was flying, or the training level of the pilot.

The relevant information is easy to look up.

For example, if the pilot wasn't IFR trained, he might have been in a
situation where he wasn't confident of keeping the airplane right side up.

That's true, but only if the pilot was incompetent. Simple cruise
flight by instruments is a required ability for private pilots,
instrument rated or not. A pilot who lacks basic required proficiency
should not be flying as PIC. That's especially true for pilots who
head to ACK at night, and especially when the destination is reporting
IMC.

Another example is that the weather may have gone down, leaving him trapped
on top without sufficient fuel to reach an airport in better conditions.

Nope. Wx archives are easy to look up (e.g. uswx.com/us/stn). There
was plenty of clear weather within 15 miles.

Besides, even if the pilot had gotten stuck on top, and even if no
clear weather was forecast within fuel range, it would have been
grossly premature to deploy the chute, if the pilot had known how to
keep flying the plane. Instead, the pilot should have contacted ATC
and gotten vectored to a safe location with emergency vehicles
standing by. And even then, the pilot could have circled until low on
fuel in case conditions improved in the meantime.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 19, 10:53 am, "Kyle Boatright" wrote:
I find it very hard to speculate about this particular episode until we
know
the airplane's fuel state, the weather at reachable fields, the
conditions
in which the aircraft was flying, or the training level of the pilot.

The relevant information is easy to look up.

Excellent! I'll wait for your follow up post containing said information.


For example, if the pilot wasn't IFR trained, he might have been in a
situation where he wasn't confident of keeping the airplane right side
up.

That's true, but only if the pilot was incompetent.

Many competent IFR and VFR pilots have died due to loss of control in IMC.
There are a thousand factors at work, and if the PIC in this situation
decided that the chute was his/her best option, so be it.

On Aug 19, 12:06 pm, "Kyle Boatright" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Aug 19, 10:53 am, "Kyle Boatright" wrote:
I find it very hard to speculate about this particular episode until we
know
the airplane's fuel state, the weather at reachable fields, the
conditions
in which the aircraft was flying, or the training level of the pilot.

The relevant information is easy to look up.

Excellent! I'll wait for your follow up post containing said information.

I posted a link to the wx info (by the way, there was a typo: I wrote
15 miles instead of 25). The pilot's training level isn't relevant,
since basic instrument cruise flight is a required skill for all
private pilots.

For example, if the pilot wasn't IFR trained, he might have been in a
situation where he wasn't confident of keeping the airplane right side
up.

That's true, but only if the pilot was incompetent.

Many competent IFR and VFR pilots have died due to loss of control in IMC.

That's probably true, but we need to be more specific. Unexpected VFR
into IMC is often disorienting; pilots may crash because they cling to
fleeting visual cues, not realizing they're in IMC. Obviously, though,
that's not the case if a pilot pulled the chute because he realized he
was unable to fly by instruments.

Loss of control in IMC may also result from especially challenging
circumstances (convection, icing, complicated approach, etc.). But
that also wasn't the case here.

There are a thousand factors at work, and if the PIC in this situation
decided that the chute was his/her best option, so be it.

If a pilot pulls the chute because he judges an uncontrolled parachute
descent to be less risky than trying to keep the plane upright for a
few minutes in simple instrument cruise flight, then he has judged
himself to have less than the minimum required competence for a
private pilot. (As I said earlier, it's not THAT judgment that I'm
disputing; he may well have made the right choice at that point.)

Anyway, I'm glad they're ok.

If a pilot pulls the chute because he judges an uncontrolled parachute
descent to be less risky than trying to keep the plane upright for a
few minutes in simple instrument cruise flight, then he has judged
himself to have less than the minimum required competence for a
private pilot.


That's BS, plain and simple. The instrument flying requirement is
required for the test, barely. There is no requirement at all to keep it
current. Otherwise, all certified pilots would be instrument pilots.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Aug 19, 11:34 am, wrote:


If a pilot pulls the chute because he judges an uncontrolled parachute
descent to be less risky than trying to keep the plane upright for a
few minutes in simple instrument cruise flight, then he has judged
himself to have less than the minimum required competence for a
private pilot. (As I said earlier, it's not THAT judgment that I'm
disputing; he may well have made the right choice at that point.)

Anyway, I'm glad they're ok.


In my view that is not a valid statement. People who leave training
with a private pilots license have at best the most primitive and
perishable of instrument skills.

Three hours is insufficient to develop and ingrain even a rudimentary
"scan" and it certianly does not teach deriving a "picture" of what
the airplane is doing based on the instruments.

I dont know what the experience level of the pilot was, but my "BFR"
experience back home is that most private pilots without an instrument
rating are essentially non functional under IMC by the two year mark
of the BFR. IE they have no instrument skills whatsoever.

Robert

wrote

If a pilot pulls the chute because he judges an uncontrolled parachute
descent to be less risky than trying to keep the plane upright for a
few minutes in simple instrument cruise flight, then he has judged
himself to have less than the minimum required competence for a
private pilot. (As I said earlier, it's not THAT judgment that I'm
disputing; he may well have made the right choice at that point.)

It seems like about everyone will agree that the Private Pilot ticket is
somewhat minimal on the ability to fly on the gauges, alone.

I personally think that there should be more emphasis on teaching and
testing ability to control the plane for more extended periods of time, and
making sure that several turns, climbs and descents are combined, all while
on the gauges. Perhaps a bit of IMC upset training could be included, also.

It would be nice if these things could be demonstrated in real, and hard,
IMC. Of course, for some people in some areas, it might be "overly
difficult" to find conditions like that - in a timely matter.

I know, many of you will say - more money, more time, not needed, over
regulation, ..... and many other reasons why not to change the way it is at
the present time.

I do wonder if the requirements were as I suggested, if we would lose less
people due to loss of control accidents, though.
--
Jim in NC