Cirrus Lands via Parachute in Nantucket

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:23:22 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

For most pilots, though--and certainly for the particular flight
that's been under discussion here--it would be irresponsible to act as
PIC without having maintained private-pilot proficiency at basic
instrument flying.
Care to explain why VFR into IMC is one of the leading accident causes?
How do you explain the very obvious disconnect between what you
postulate a regular, average pilot's abilities to be - and reality?

Actually, VFR into VMC *is* a leading accident cause, but the rate is lower than
the leading cause by nearly an order of magnitude. Though it depends on how you
lump together causes, really.

As many of you now, I've done an in-depth analysis of homebuilt accidents in the
1998-2004 timeframe. As a Control Group, I did a similar analysis of Cessna
172/Cessna 210 accidents.

Here's how my results came out:

Cause Percent
General Pilot Error 52.5%
Fuel Exhaustion/Starvation 8.9%
VFR to IFR 5.2%
Undetermined Loss of Power 4.7%
Maintenance Error 4.6%
Other Mechanical 4.2%
Engine Mechanical 3.7%
Buzzing 2.7%
Inadequate Preflight 1.6%
Carb Ice 1.2%
Fuel System 0.9%
Fuel Contamination 0.5%
Manufacturer Error 0.3%
Other 6.8% (lumps in 12 less-common events like
midairs, pilot incapacitation, etc.)

"General Pilot Error" in my analysis includes any accident that stemmed from the
pilot's improper use of stick-and-rudder skills, including the judgement aspects
(undershoots, overshoots, etc.).

So about 5% of the 172/210 accidents were due to an attempt to continue VFR
flight into IFR conditions.

I don't know how much different the Cirrus would be than my control group, but
my cursory look over a couple of years seems to show it's similar. Cases where
the CAPS was used...or where the CAPS could/should have been used... are still
outnumbered by the instances of overshoots/undershoots, loss of control on
rollout, brake fires, etc.

Ron Wanttaja


Ron, what is VFR into IFR and IFR conditions. Is this anything like VFR
into IMC? :-)

Matt

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Matt,

If flying in a manner that just meets the MINIMUM standard to achieve a
pilot certificate in the US is what you consider "perfect and
infallible",

Ok, one more try, then I'll give up: Im my experience (and I passed the
same rides on the first try), there's a VAST difference between doing
basic instrument flight as required for VFR pilots under the hood or with
a CFI present, and flying in the clouds with no one but yourself present,
fully knowing you have gotten yourself into a situation that a) you
shouldn't be, b) you aren't legal to be in and c) has a very high
potential to kill you.

If you have the nerves of steel not to see a difference there, I can't
help it, but my view is supported by the accident statistics with
overwhelming clarity. VFR flight into IMC is a leading accident cause. Ask
yourself why that might be. Then try to pull another "Ha, ha, ha" on me.

That is why this should be regularly practiced and checked during every
BFR. I once accidentally flew into IMC prior to getting my instrument
rating. I did as I was trained and transitioned to instruments, made a
180 and within a couple of minutes was out of the snow storm and back
into VMC. It was a shock at first, but then the training kicked in and
I executed as taught. It wasn't a big deal. Then again, I had a crusty
old instructor who really taught you how to fly and every BFR checked
the stuff that people didn't practice often such as flying on
instruments. I'm always amazed when I hear of BFRs that cover takeoffs
and landings and stuff you do every flight and completely ignore the
stuff like simulated emergency landings, fire in the cockpit, electrical
failure, inadvertent flight into IMC, etc., that you almost never
encounter during normal flight.

The accident statistics support that many pilots are not competent. No
disagreement from me on that point. However, this has nothing to do
with "perfect and infallible" and everything to do with basic competence
of instruction and maintaining proficiency on your own between BFRs.

Matt

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:52:04 -0400, Owen Rogers
wrote:

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.

The two aboard had minor injuries but will be ok. Nobody was injured on
the ground.

Here is a news link:
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pb...180319/-1/NEWS

Other reports said that it was a Cirrus, although the make/model hasn't
been confirmed yet.



And finally, the NTSB preliminary report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...21X01216&key=1

If the report is accurate, we have a non-instrument rated pilot who, when
ACK suddenly "went IFR", "informed the controller that he was capable of
executing the ILS approach". Five minutes later, Cape Approach informed
the tower controller that the pilot had deployed the parachute.

If the report is accurate, the pilot is not only incompetent but a liar
as well. It will be curious to see the full report...

Matt

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 10:45:41 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:05:47 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

Thomas Borchert 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.

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.

That's BS, at least in the US. I can't speak for other parts of the
world. That is why we have biennial flight reviews, to see if currency
is being maintained. A private pilot should be capable of doing
anything required of their certificate. Flying straight and level on
instruments is a far cry from being instrument rated.

I've been taking BFRs since they were instituted, and don't believe I've been
put under the hood more than once or twice since my original Private flight
test. And *that* was ~35 years ago.

My experience has been the opposite. I don't remember having had a BFR
without going under the hood. OTOH I always eat the same thing for
breakfast just in case some one asks I'll get it right.


Every time Cirrus BRS deployments come up, I'm reminded of the anti-parachute
arguments during WWI.

Ron Wanttaja

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...


Ron, what is VFR into IFR and IFR conditions. Is this anything like VFR
into IMC? :-)


Matt.. VFR into IFR conditions is when you slew that Cessna 172 above FL180
grin

--
Doug Semler, MCPD
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Aluckyguess wrote:
You know in reality it took a lot of balls to pull that chute.
Something in the pilots mind was really wrong. Imagine yourself
looking over to the passenger after minutes that seemed like hours
and saying, dude hold on im going to pull the chute. the passenger
replies what, what's the problem. The problem even with all this cool
**** in front of me I have no idea where I'm at. Or maybe he said we
just lost the alternator and the backup isn't enough juice for me to
fly in imc. As they are floating down into the abyss the pilot looks
over and says I hope this thing floats. I really cant imagine how
scary this ordeal was.

Weren't you one of the guys that was bitching because we didn't have
enough information to discuss the issue? Now you are adding in alternator
failures and even the conversation that went on in the cockpit.

I am just making something up, a scenario out of the blue. I have no idea
what happened. I do know the pilot and passenger are still alive and to me
that is all that matters.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:18:36 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:


Ron, what is VFR into IFR and IFR conditions. Is this anything like VFR
into IMC? :-)

Whatever you guys with the flickery-humming things in your instrument panel call
it when the forward view looks like the inside of a cow. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:34:35 +0000 (UTC), Dylan Smith
wrote:

On 2007-08-22, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
I've had one gen-u-wine emergency in my flying life, an engine failure in my 150
about 23 years ago.

Hmm. Were you the Ron Wanttaja who wrote the ILAFFT about that incident?
Something to do with fuel contamination, if I remember right.

No, that was my evil twin, Ron "Skippy" Wanttaja.

Yep, t'was me. May 1987, reprinted in ILAFFT #3.

Strange, the Usenet posting that I did after the event is *almost* on Google.
When I search for it, I find a couple of responses, but not the original
article. Just a follow-up by sometime who wanted to tell their own story, and a
smart-a** response from Ron Natalie.

Funny how things never change. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

wrote:

On Aug 22, 2:12 pm, Doug Semler wrote:
Not stating anything for or against your argument, because I think it
is slightly flawed. You are assuming that all flights by all pilots
are initiated in VMC or under VFR.

No, I'm making no such assumption. I'm just assuming what I stated:
that an average pilot accidentally flies VFR into IMC at least once
every ten years or so. I think that's a pretty conservative guess.

Been flying for 30+ years and ZERO VFR to IMC incursions.

Plus of the 600,000 pilots (maybe only 450,000), many seldom fly.

I suspect that the odds are very high that if a VFR pilots gets into
IMC he is a goner.

Ron Lee

And finally, the NTSB preliminary report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...21X01216&key=1

If the report is accurate, we have a non-instrument rated pilot who,
when ACK suddenly "went IFR", "informed the controller that he was
capable of executing the ILS approach". Five minutes later, Cape
Approach informed the tower controller that the pilot had deployed
the parachute.



That sort of revives the stupid pilot theory.


Actually that is a good initial guess for most GA crashes.

Ron Lee