What hole in my plane.

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › What hole in my plane.

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#285751 14-May-2021 17:52

What an amazing feat for both of these pilots to survive.

I got an engine out, oh wait there is a bloody big hole in my plane.

I did not realise there was a chute emergency system that has been deployed onto small planes how cool is that.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man

alasta

6888 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3362

Trusted

Subscriber

#2707684 14-May-2021 18:28

This article shows some details, and a photo of the other aircraft involved. I'm curious as to what exactly the CAPS rescue parachute is?

In any case, it's absolutely astounding that no-one was killed in this incident.

danfaulknor

974 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 533

Trusted

Prodigi

Subscriber

#2707685 14-May-2021 18:49

alasta:

I'm curious as to what exactly the CAPS rescue parachute is?

Cirrus Airframe Parachute System. If you lose the engine or the plane becomes otherwise unflyable you pull the handle and a parachute is deployed to gently (ish) lower the plane to the ground. Sometimes they repair the plane but often hitting the ground (or whatever happened in the air) writes it off, but saves the people on board.

they/them

Prodigi - Optimised IT Solutions
WebOps/DevOps, Managed IT, Hosting and Internet/WAN.

andrewNZ

2487 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1461
Inactive user

#2707750 14-May-2021 23:24

There is another system for passengers if the pilot becomes incapacitated.

If someone presses the button, the auto pilot takes control, and lands the plane.

Oblivian

7345 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2117

ID Verified

#2707752 15-May-2021 00:27

Next time you visit your local aero club, look out for pipistrels too. Small panel behind cockpit on the wing rear with the warning label

Ballistic recovery system. Been used by students in Australia before.

rb99

3505 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1830

Lifetime subscriber

#2707768 15-May-2021 08:42

I quite like this site for commenting on aviation news stuff, including the above incident -

https://www.pprune.org/trending.php

They also have good reminiscences. When I were a lad...

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

rb99

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2707916 15-May-2021 13:19

danielfaulknor:

alasta:

I'm curious as to what exactly the CAPS rescue parachute is?

Cirrus Airframe Parachute System. If you lose the engine or the plane becomes otherwise unflyable you pull the handle and a parachute is deployed to gently (ish) lower the plane to the ground. Sometimes they repair the plane but often hitting the ground (or whatever happened in the air) writes it off, but saves the people on board.

I'm not a fan of BRS parachutes.

If you have a plane that stalls at 40kts (I know, the Cirrus doesn't) and a 20kt wind, then flying it to the ground gives you a 20kt ground speed under your control, whereas pulling the chute gives you a 20kt landing that's completely uncontrolled.
They're not that good... if the impact had been in a different place, the chute might not have worked. I was surprised that the people in that crash walked away... it's not uncommon for the landing to be so hard that the passengers get back injuries. And it's more common for the plane to be written off than repaired.
They're expensive, dangerous, and take up a lot of space and weight, and dangerous. Given that most forced landings are due to running out of fuel, it would be far better to have an extra fuel tank than a BRS.
Cirrus doesn't have a better safety record than other GA aircraft, despite the parachute. The thinking is that people take more risks (e.g. fly into cloud) because they feel their lives aren't at risk.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Technofreak

6656 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3474

Trusted

#2708728 17-May-2021 22:33

frankv:

I'm not a fan of BRS parachutes.

If you have a plane that stalls at 40kts (I know, the Cirrus doesn't) and a 20kt wind, then flying it to the ground gives you a 20kt ground speed under your control, whereas pulling the chute gives you a 20kt landing that's completely uncontrolled.
They're not that good... if the impact had been in a different place, the chute might not have worked. I was surprised that the people in that crash walked away... it's not uncommon for the landing to be so hard that the passengers get back injuries. And it's more common for the plane to be written off than repaired.
They're expensive, dangerous, and take up a lot of space and weight, and dangerous. Given that most forced landings are due to running out of fuel, it would be far better to have an extra fuel tank than a BRS.
Cirrus doesn't have a better safety record than other GA aircraft, despite the parachute. The thinking is that people take more risks (e.g. fly into cloud) because they feel their lives aren't at risk.

Neither am I primarily because of point number 4.

For those that may think otherwise, an aircraft does not become unflyable if the engine stops. It becomes a glider and should come to a safe landing under the control of the pilot.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

tripper1000

1648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1176

#2708907 18-May-2021 11:12

OK, so we're ragging on a system that just saved a couple of lives? And saying more fuel would have also saved the day?

And whats with the the cause of pilots running out of gas being that gas tanks are too small? Sounds a bit like someone who has run out of gas and has a dangerous inablity to self reflect!

Points 3 and 4 counter each other out. If you gave people bigger fuel tanks, it won't stop people from running out of gas becuse they'd just take more risks.

The above arguments are very reminicent the same arguments against seat belts, air bags, ABS (dangerous, expensive, un-necessary, encourages risk taking), and even TCAS in aircraft, and those arguments didn't stand the test of time.

The parachute system may well exacerbate risk taking by risk takers, but it absolutely adds safety for responsible pilots. It may well add weight but it very few who have deloyed it would agree it was too heavy.

You don't have to flip the fly-dumb switch just because the plane is fitted with a BRS.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2709040 18-May-2021 14:59

tripper1000:

OK, so we're ragging on a system that just saved a couple of lives? And saying more fuel would have also saved the day?

And whats with the the cause of pilots running out of gas being that gas tanks are too small? Sounds a bit like someone who has run out of gas and has a dangerous inablity to self reflect!

Points 3 and 4 counter each other out. If you gave people bigger fuel tanks, it won't stop people from running out of gas becuse they'd just take more risks.

The above arguments are very reminicent the same arguments against seat belts, air bags, ABS (dangerous, expensive, un-necessary, encourages risk taking), and even TCAS in aircraft, and those arguments didn't stand the test of time.

The parachute system may well exacerbate risk taking by risk takers, but it absolutely adds safety for responsible pilots. It may well add weight but it very few who have deloyed it would agree it was too heavy.

You don't have to flip the fly-dumb switch just because the plane is fitted with a BRS.

In this case it appears that the chute saved two lives. However, we don't know what would have happened if they hadn't pulled the chute. Maybe the plane was still controllable and could have been glided to a safe landing? Admittedly probably not, otherwise he wouldn't have pulled the red handle. But the separation of the tail appears to have happened during the landing, AFAICT.

No, more fuel wouldn't have helped in *this* case... it's not a panacea. But generally, more fuel is more options. You can linger or re-route if the weather changes. Of course, you shouldn't get yourself into a situation where you don't have a fuel reserve, but it happens. And, on a cross-country flight, more fuel is less landings and takeoffs, which are the most dangerous phase of flight.

But the reality is that the "miracle" BRS is only useful in a limited number of situations, which *might* (but doesn't) save 25% of fatalities. And at significant cost. A BRS for a Cessna 172 takes up the space and weight of about 1 person, and costs over $30K installed. You know what, you can improve car safety by *never* allowing anyone to sit in the front passenger seat. You, as a responsible driver, must surely be doing that? Would you have ABS in your car if it cost $30K and took up one passenger seat?

I haven't heard anyone making (dangerous, un-necessary, encourages risk taking) arguments against TCAS or ADSB. Expensive, yes. Encourages people to not look out properly, yes. So it's more dangerous for aircraft that aren't ADSB-equipped. Generally the discussion is all about "I'd have it if I could afford it".

You don't have to fly dumb if you have a BRS. But the evidence is that some people do, so although it it absolutely adds safety for responsible pilots, it doesn't do squat for the average pilot.

[Edit] Just want to be clear... a BRS is dangerous in that it has a rocket motor to launch the chute. There's always some (small) risk of accidental firing, and it needs to be deactivated when any work is done on the aircraft. So the danger is I guess comparable to airbags in a car.