Quote:
If you visit it, you will see that almost every instance of chute usage is loss of control, structural failure, or "unlandable terrain". In those instances where "engine out -- unlandable" is the reason, note the low altitudes where the chute was deployed -- those pilots properly used the chute as a last resort, close to the ground. I have been to the Cirrus and BRS displays at fly-ins and they will specifically tell you that loss of engine is NOT a reason to pull the chute. One BRS rep even told me that you should consider the chute lever as a "pilot becomes passenger" lever. Once the chute is pulled , the pilot loses complete control of the aircraft.
I did read/scan the instances where the chute was pulled in an engine out situation on the BRS website (18 different cases). You made a
blanket statement regarding engine out situations and pulling the chute. For example, I never recommended that in any engine out situation the chute is the first and best option if the engine fails yet you assume that to be true.
Is there an instance where the engine fails and a pilot reasonably concludes his BEST option is to ride to the ground vertically? You would have to answer YES. Now, the multitude of factors that would contribute to such a decision are many, but 2 critical factors would be landing terrain and altitude. Even if one was at 3,000'agl that's no guarantee there is a suitable spot below. Would, though, it be reasonable to pull at that altitude. Probably not. 800'agl and all you have is a dense forest on the steep side of a mountain including the valley below for 10 miles in any direction (Costa Rica)? I'll take 20 kts vertical as a passenger than 50kts horizontal into a tree.
I've been pulling carb heat since the 70's. I've been to the fly-ins even Oshkosh when BRS showed up on the scene before Cirrus starting packing. The blanket statement that an engine out is NEVER a reason to pull the chute is inaccurate.
Berk.....
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Calendar
