Morton, Washington Cirrus Crash: Should the Pilot Have Deployed the Parachute?
That's the number one question I've been asked about this accident. Not "why did the accident happen," but "why didn't the pilot use the parachute?"
As I note here, most Cirrus pilots would say that the parachute should be deployed in the event of engine failure, unless there is a long, paved runway beneath the aircraft such that a safe on-airport landing is assured. But that doesn't mean that, if there is no airport within range, a pilot who opts to glide to a field rather than pull the chute is negligent.
Pulling the parachute has serious risks. The aircraft's rate of descent under the parachute is high. Ground impact forces are severe. Cirrus warns that the decision to deploy the parachute should
not be made lightly because parachute deployment may result in "severe injury or death to the aircraft occupants."
The Cirrus, like every aircraft, comes with a Pilot Operating Handbook. That's the "bible" that the pilot is supposed to follow. The emergency checklist for an "engine out" scenario does not mention the parachute system:
Forced Landing (Engine Out): If all attempts to restart the engine fail and a forced landing is imminent, select a suitable field and prepare for the landing.
A suitable field should be chosen as early as possible so that maximum time will be available to plan and execute the landing. . .
The checklist then sets forth the 12-step "forced landing" checklist. No mention of the parachute, anywhere.
In the back of the Handbook, there is a separate section on the use of the parachute. This section lays out various scenarios in which the pilot should consider deploying the parachute, such as after a mid-air collision, aircraft structural failure, or loss of aircraft control One scenario deals with engine failures:
Landing Required in Terrain not Permitting a Safe Landing
If a forced landing is required because of engine failure, fuel exhaustion. . .or any other condition, [parachute] activation is only warranted if a landing cannot be made that ensures little or no risk to the aircraft occupants. However, if the condition occurs over terrain thought not to permit such a landing, such as: over extremely rough or mountainous terrain, over water out of gliding distance to land, over widespread ground fog or at night, [parachute] deployment should be considered.
The pilot was not over "extremely rough or mountainous terrain." He had apparently picked out what he believed to be a suitable field for a forced landing. The Cirrus Pilot Operating Handbook does not require pilots to deploy the parachute in the situation this pilot faced. To the contrary, the Handbook leaves that decision to the pilot's discretion:
It is the responsibility of you, the pilot, to determine when and how the [parachute system] will be used.
Related Post: Cirrus Crash at Morton, Washington
Rate of descent under the Cirrus parachute is 1600-1800 fpm, or 18-20 mph, compared to about 1000 fpm for a person under a parachute, or about 11 mph.
If one deploys the chute, one floats down to the ground at 20 mph under a parachute while strapped into the cockpit, sitting on a seat pan built with energy-absorbing materials. The whole airplane is designed to absorb forces vertically, just as cars are built to absorb forces horizontally (mostly from the front).
On the other hand, you can instead try a forced landing in a field that contains who-knows-what kind of obstacles. Cirrus stall speed, depending on configuration is, 59-70 knots, or 67-79 mph. Most pilots never practice a forced landing after they get their license, and very few ever actually do off-airport landings. If one is flying over the plains states, one has a wonderful choice of off-airport landing sites uncluttered by trees, stumps, uneven terrain, and other airplane-destroying things. Not so much in Morton, Washington.
A quick-n-dirty look at a satellite view of the Morton, Washington, area, shows a few open fields, but none more than maybe 1/2 mile or so long, most surrounded by trees. A 2600-ft runway is a short runway with a fully-functional aircraft and the opportunity to go around and try again if you make a poor approach. A 2600-ft field surrounded by trees is a deathtrap for a scared pilot trying a do-or-die forced landing. A little to low and you hit trees before you get to the open field. A little to high and you hit trees at the other end of the field. The photo you show of the Morton, WA, crash shows a destroyed airplane resting in an area full of trees and man-made obstacles. I can only wonder where the open field was this pilot was going for.
So, there you have it. You can descend vertically at 20 mph, or plow horizontally into a field at 60-70 mph. The goal, remember, is to save the lives of the people inside the entirely expendable airplane, not risk the lives of everyone on board for the tiny chance of saving the airplane.
As for me, I'd much rather float vertically into a treetop at 20 mph than hit a tree trunk horizontally, even at the same speed.
A pilot flying a single-engine GA airplane needs to be evaluating where he will land his aircraft in the event of an engine failure for every single moment of his flight. Every single moment. Every flight. Always. If the pilot is flying a Cirrus, then he adds the availability of the chute to his decision-making process. If the engine fails, the pilot should already know what he's going to do. If the pilot only starts thinking about what to do after the engine actually fails, he's doing it wrong, and has breached the duty of care he owes himself and his passengers.
"The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." 14 CFR 91.3 means what it says. Lawyers and courts can tie themselves into all the knots they want in order to ensure that survivors or injured persons get compensation for their injuries. (Often targeting the manufacturer--that's where the money is.) Those courtroom gymnastics, however, have nothing to do with who, in reality, is responsible.
If a pilot does not want that kind of responsibility, then stay on the ground. As for your scrutiny of the POH, I have no doubt that thing was lawyered to death before it was published. That's evident from the tortured language, which when translated, says that unless you can make a forced landing that ensures (ensures!) little or no risk to occupants (a rare forced landing indeed), consider the chute.
The POH does not command a certain course of action. It leaves that up to the pilot in command, which is exactly where that responsibility lies. No book or written set of instructions can foresee every eventuality. That's what the pilot is for. It's his responsibility. A pilot who points fingers everywhere but at himself when things go wrong should stay on the ground.
Cloudesley-
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
The POH may well have been, as you say, "lawyered to death" before it was published. But that doesn't help the pilot any.
A pilot can respond to an emergency only as he has been trained to respond. And his training will follow the POH. After all, the POH is the product of countless hours of engineering, test-flight and, presumably, FAA review.
The Cirrus POH, as it is currently written, contains a bias against deploying the chute in the situation this pilot faced. In my view, a pilot should not be expected to know better than the folks who designed, manufactured, and sold the aircraft.
Mike
Mike-
Insofar as pilots rely on POH's for training, I believe that Cirrus has that ground well-covered. After reading your reply, I found a recent Cirrus manual online, and the context from which you pull out the quote about "Landing Required in Terrain not Permitting a Safe Landing" in your original post is enlightening.
A rather long quote--
The Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) is designed to lower the aircraft and its passengers to the ground in the event of a life threatening
emergency. However, because CAPS deployment is
expected to result in damage to the airframe and, depending upon adverse external factors such as high deployment speed, low altitude, rough terrain or high wind conditions, may result in severe injury or death to the aircraft occupants, its use should not be taken lightly. Instead, possible CAPS activation scenarios should be well thought
out and mentally practiced by every pilot.
The following discussion is meant to guide your thinking about CAPS activation. It is intended to be informative, not directive. It is the responsibility of you, the pilot, to determine when and how the CAPS will be used.
Deployment Scenarios
This section describes possible scenarios in which the activation of the CAPS might be appropriate. This list is not intended to be exclusive, but merely illustrative of the type of circumstances when CAPS deployment could be the only means of saving the occupants of the aircraft.
--end quote--
The paragraph you cite, "Landing Required in Terrain not Permitting a Safe Landing" is a subparagraph underneath "Deployment Scenarios." I must politely disagree that a paragraph underneath "deployment scenarios" can be read as having a bias against deployment. Rather, it is one of the situations where Cirrus specifically counsels consideration of the CAPS.
The Cirrus manual appears to me to be abundantly clear that the chute is not a panacea, guaranteed to save your life no matter what situation one is faced with. Rather, the manual plainly states that depending on conditions, deploying the chute could be just as dangerous, or more dangerous, than a forced landing. The high wind scenario is one I had not thought of offhand, but makes perfect sense. Landing into a 30-kt wind at 60 KIAS is no different that drifting down in a 30-kt wind. You still hit the ground going 30 kts horizontally.
I think the manual does a fine job of explaining to the pilot that he has another safety tool available to him, but it is ultimately the pilot's responsibility to assess all of the circumstances he faces, and make the best decision that he can. No manual, book, or training course; or manufacturer, designer, or seller, can possibly foresee every eventuality, nor should anyone try such a fool's errand.
The POH tells the pilot how the chute works, and warns him of its limitations. It leaves the decision whether or not to use the chute to the pilot, because that's the pilot's job. The two most important sentences from the POH are, in my humble opinion, these:
"Possible CAPS activation scenarios should be well thought out and mentally practiced by every pilot."
"It is the responsibility of you, the pilot, to determine when and how the CAPS will be used."
I do note that the manual requires use of the chute in one instance, in section three under spins--
• WARNING •
In all cases, if the aircraft enters an unusual attitude from which recovery is not expected before ground impact, immediate deployment of the CAPS is required. The minimum demonstrated altitude loss for a CAPS deployment from a one-turn spin is 920 feet. Activation at higher altitudes provides enhanced safety margins for parachute recoveries. Do not waste time and altitude trying to recover from a spiral/spin before activating CAPS.
Kind regards,
CS
CS: Nice comment but I think the point of the original post was that, since the POH manual does not require the pilot to deploy CAPS in an engine out situation, but rather leaves the decision entirely to the pilot, it's hard to blame the pilot regardless of which way he goes with it.
JST
The most dangerous part of the Cirrus aircraft is the CAPS.
Any pilot that believes he is safer in an aircraft that is equipped with a parachute should think twice about whether flying small aircraft is really for him/her.
Most forced landings performed by reasonably competent and current pilots are relatively successful, during day VFR conditions. This seems not to be the case with the Cirrus. It's as much a psychological state of mind that the pilot develops as it is a skill factor. It's like flying a twin, the second engine often takes an in experienced pilot to the scene of the accident.
These planes would be far safer without a parachute system. If you find yourself flying low IFR or at night over the mountains and loose an engine, perhaps you should ask yourself, “should I really be attempting such a flight in a single engine aircraft in the first place?"
I personally instructed for a company (a major national flag carrier) that prohibited flying IMC in single engine aircraft and night flying was only permitted under strict rules and conditions.
Cirrus gives the impression to prospective owners that this is an “all weather, night, IMC over the mountains machine," and that the technology will help keep you out of trouble or save you if you get into trouble.
It's really nothing more than a fancy 172 and it's capabilities are just as limited.
It's now become the 'doctor killer' of the 21st century due to the inexperience of the folks who can afford to buy them.
Notes from an aerospace engineer and pilot who has made forced landings:
1) From an altitude of 5,000 feet, a Cirrus can glide approximately 9 miles after engine failure. 2 x pi x 9^2 is 254 square miles of landing area! Aside from an engine failure during take-off, there is almost always a suitable landing field within glide distance. In fact, there are probably MANY safe landing options.
2) An off-field landing into an average farm field is MUCH safer than a parachute landing. If you don't feel comfortable landing the airplane in a 500 acre field than you probably need a little dual.
3) The human body can sustain brief accelerations of 50 g's in the forward direction when the pilot is properly secured. Vertical impacts are terrible for us and easily result in spinal injury. It is probably safer to crash head-on into a brick wall at 40mph than land vertically at 20mph.
4) Cirrus has spent a lot more time analyzing it than any of us have spent pondering. Listen to the POH.
5) Keep in mind that off-field landings are 90% identical to a regular landing. You already know how to control your airspeed, fly a patern, judge your final approach, flare, etc. If you make a fairly average landing in an average plowed field, you will be just fine.
Off-field landings are a routine part of bush flying and gliding... no parachute required. Be a pilot if you have the opportunity... pull the chute if you have no reasonable landing option.