Cirrus Lands via Parachute in Nantucket

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 10:58:40 -0500, "Viperdoc"
wrote in
:

It looks like on Flightaware that it was an IFR flight

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N869CD

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.

In article ,
"Kyle Boatright" wrote:

Every time someone uses the chute on a Cirrus, we get people second guessing
the decision.

Every decision everyone makes is a candidate for being second guessed.
I hope no one is saying pilot decisions are not open for discussion or debate.

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.

There are many people who are qualified to make that decision. The PIC
is responsible for it, but many people are qualified.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

wrote in
oups.com:

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

I disagree with that statement. Most VFR pilots get a grand total of 3 hours
of hood training sitting next to their instructor. Unless they go on to get
their instrument ticket, they never put a hood on again.

I can certainly believe that a VFR-only pilot who got deep into real IFR soup
with nothing but 3 hours hood time would panic and pull his chute.

The question is that if he was not qualified to fly IFR, what conditions led
him to get into the soup so deep that his best perceived option was to pull
the chute?

And if he was qualified to fly IFR, what condition in the plane led him to
believe that he would be better of swimming in the fog than flying in it?

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?

Fog setting in is often an area phenomenon. It's not
like flying into a puffy cumulous on a summer day.

On Aug 19, 12:39 pm, Judah wrote:
wrote groups.com:

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

I disagree with that statement. Most VFR pilots get a grand total of 3 hours
of hood training sitting next to their instructor. Unless they go on to get
their instrument ticket, they never put a hood on again.

But isn't it a pilot's responsibility to be sure she or he is
proficient before taking off as PIC? If a private pilot doesn't
occasionally use a hood or a simulator (or night VFR over water, etc.)
to practice instrument flying, isn't that pilot shirking a basic
responsibility to maintain required competence?

A pilot who lacks basic required proficiency
should not be flying as PIC.


No offense, but you seem to have a lot of pride. The kind that cometh
before the fall.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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)

But isn't it a pilot's responsibility to be sure she or he is
proficient before taking off as PIC? If a private pilot doesn't
occasionally use a hood or a simulator (or night VFR over water, etc.)
to practice instrument flying, isn't that pilot shirking a basic
responsibility to maintain required competence?


MX? That you?

Seriously, though: Are you a pilot?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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.

Matt