N644SR SR22 Engine Out And No Chute
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 чер 2021
- Cirrus SR22 N644SR engine Failure in Climb and No Chute! What would you do?
/ flywire
FlyWire is about exploring flight and the freedom this incredible experience brings us on a personal level. Flying has always captured the imagination and excitement of living life to its fullest. Hi, I'm Scott Perdue. In a former life I flew the F-4 and F-15E, more recently I retired from a major airline. I've written for several aviation magazines over the years, was a consultant for RAND, the USAF, Navy, NASA as well as few others, wrote a military thriller- 'Pale Moon Rising' (still on Kindle). But mostly I like flying, or teaching flying. Some of the most fun I had was with Tom Gresham on a TV show called 'Wings to Adventure". We flew lots of different airplanes all over the country. Now with FlyWire I want to showcase the fun in flying, share the joy and freedom of flight and explore the world with you. Make sure you subscribe if you want to go along for the ride!
#Pilot #Fly #Flying #Fly yourself #aviation #Flying Training #Learn to Fly #adventure
Memberships: / @flywirescottperdue
Website: www.flywire.online
Merch Links: T-Shirts, My Novel: www.flywire.online/merch
Twitter: @FlyWireO / flywire.online
Facebook: / flywireonline - Авто та транспорт
My dad had a flying business in San Francisco in the 1930s. One day he bought three WW1 parachutes at an auction. He kept one but gave the other two to some of his flying buddies. One of them, “Smoky” Poulson, flew airshows and dad noticed that he was taking more than his share of chances. “Hey, did you get that old chute repacked?” he asked. When Smoky took the parachute into the riggers shop and opened it up he discovered that he’d been trusting his life to 8 pounds of the San Francisco Chronicle. The other two chutes were just fine.
wow, what a crazy story!!
And it could have been worse if it were 8 pounds of LA Times.
He actually did 3 engine outs in one. He had plan A, the runway. Then plan B, the parachute and plan C land on road. He stayed focused after B failed, which is the real accomplishment here.
That's one of my best friends who was flying that plane and you are exactly right. There were really no other options available to him and he intentionally avoided the glider port or he probably could have landed on a pretty good runway. However he took the advice of ATC because there were numerous gliders in the air without radios. That fact is not being reported. He has numerous hours flying in the mountains and I mean the big mountains, absolutely perfect in terms of training and currency including IFR and a lot of other ratings. It comes down to aviate navigate communicate, and follow your training. He did all those things. People are questioning his descent rate but it's because he thought he was going to land at the glider port and was navigated away at the last minute by ATC. So he hit a dirt road that had about a foot of sand on it really hard. A Cirrus is not meant to land on that kind of runway. He pulled it off, walked away holding hands with his daughter. Who cares about the airplane? Although it was beautiful. Much more beautiful is he pulled it off. He's currently in Cabo celebrating his daughter's birthday.
And I don't want to disrespect Scott in any way. He does a great job with the facts he has. Sometimes he does not have 100% of them and this is the only time I've ever been able to add anything to any conversation. Purely from personal knowledge. Scott keep up the geat work!
@@trangoadvisory >>boy Malcolm, you said that really well. My compliments.
@@TahoeRealm yeah, can understand what he said.
Best advice ever: A chute shouldn't prevent you from doing that pilot shit.
Aviate.
Navigate.
Communicate.
Simples.
@@glennllewellyn7369 And fly the airplane.
Plan A, B AND C! Great advice! Having a plan if the chute fails is a must.
Please don't apologise...
Good Shit...
👍
@@lessharratt8719 …….= AVIATE
"God is my copilot.-Murphy is the fight engineer."
Boy an't that the truth!
Sooo... the right seat is empty, got it.
😂😂😂
Least we have you, Doc.
@@rogerbee697 This comment!
Excellent background briefing Scott! I’m going to link this to the Truckee Cirrus crash video. Juan
Thanks!
I realize that this is going to sound rude so I apologize in advance. I mean do you folks just say these sorts of things to sound knowlegable or expert-like? Lets be serious, it wasn't an excellent briefing and for you to casually say that means you didn't listen to it! Its an excellent briefing if you aren't going to listen to it or hear what he has to say if you do. It certainly isn't my intention to start a range war here but sincerity actually does count for something.
Juan, love and subscribe to your channel too. I posted a comment here above you might be interested in.
@@CRSolarice bye Karen 👋
@@eradicator187 Bite me, I'm huge.
I know a guy who had to make an emergency landing on a road. The road was his best option, but it wasn't that great. On rollout after landing he collided with a passenger car.
No one was hurt, but the driver of the car was rather upset, having his car wrecked. My friend explained he had insurance, and his damages would be covered. But in addition to that he had a great story.
When someone asked, how did your car get wrecked, he gets to say, "I was in a plane crash, man."
Person in the car was a schmuck.... it’s not like the pilot pal of your had “CHOSEN” to wreck a car that day. *Planes don’t just land on occupied highways.
* expect for the USAF A-10 in Germany and the Germany Luftwaffe
Couldn't agree more. Fly that thang.
The issue is people sometimes mistakenly measure the cost of the crash with their own lives. Popping the chute is almost guaranteed to save lives, but it doesn't save the aircraft. Any chute deployed landing is going to total the aircraft, pride and stubborness can be a killer.
When the engine quits...your airplane doesn't stop being an airplane...it just becomes a shitty glider. Use whatever it has left to give, to get you to the best possible landing spot, regardless if your wings get you there or a parachute. As Scott wisely points out...that best spot isn't always an airport.
Here's the problem Cirrus pilots face - there is a minimum altitude for parachute deployment. Below that, all bets are off, so a Cirrus pilot may have to make that decision to destroy his aircraft sooner than other pilots do.
@@chuckschillingvideos That is a very reasonable analysis.
@@chuckschillingvideos the minimum altitude is 600ft, that's a horror in any plane
@@chuckschillingvideos The moment a cirrus pilot decides to deploy CAPS, the aircraft becomes the property of insurance company not the pilot.
Extremely well thought out commentary and delivered seamlessly. Subscribed
Thanks for posting the bulletin w/serial numbers! Great advice to ponder. As a Cirrus pilot, I love the chute as a safety tool but I was just flying the grand canyon 2 weeks ago and my copilot, a seasoned mountain/high terrain pilot, commented many times regarding the sparce population and planning an off field landing so that you can receive assistance.
Well done and well thought out video Scott.
Scott,
Couldn't agree with you more!
That parachute on a Cirrus can be just like the proverbial sucker hole that draws you into a letdown through a cloud layer and then bite you like a snake.
Conservation of your energy in those last seconds is so very important Scott, you're right. Kudos my friend!
🛫🛬📖🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🐆
Great video, Scott...as usual. Thanks
Thank you for letting us know about this issue
Thank's for sharing, Scott and always great learning tips...!!
I fully agree with you, all the “ new “ safety features are great and have its place, but , human attitude plays a huge role, with the right training many engin failures can end up with the airplane in tacked and repairable, be competent and keep your emergency skills drilled in. Stay safe
Good thoughts.👍🏻
When the automation (or the chute) fails, the fallback option is always being a pilot, which is the ultimate redundancy factor. Probably smart to include the basics in training scenarios.
I was the plane that took off directly after 644SR from TUS that day and heard this entire interaction live on the radio. I didn't realize his chute never deployed, his last transmission that I heard before I got handed off to the next controller was that he was deploying his chute. Tucson departure suggested Marana for him to land, but he said he was not going to make it, and they offered him the closer glider airport instead.
Very informative video as usual. Thanks for putting these together for us all to maybe learn a little something.
I recall seeing that bad vibration set in on Niko's wings youtube channel when he was out over the Gulf of Mexico. Sun visor was shaking violently. He turned that trip around and aborted it. Then he got caught at the edge of Class B airspace by ORD, and lost radio and glass panel as the vibration ate through the alternator cable cover and shorted electronics.
What a familiar story.
Excellent. On point, as usual.
Two of my friends rode 'chute pull #7 ever in an SR22. If they'd been in any other aircraft in identical circumstances, they'd be dead. Sadly, another person I knew *should* have pulled the 'chute, but didn't. You can guess the results.
Excellent comments. There is a small but growing realization that "safety" equipment often leads to less safety for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I recall that accident rates went up when anti-lock brakes were introduced. We are also seeing similar issues with the cars that have self driving features. People too often expect that equipment will never fail, and as a result are not prepared when it does. I saw this in the Army, and see it with sailing, flying, and many other activities. Thanks again for your superb analysis.
All of the data I have seen shows that self-driving cars are far safer on a per mile basis than are human driven cars. The main difference is that every crash of a self-driving car makes world headlines.
@@LTVoyager I agree that a self driving car will be more safe than the average driver. My point was that people rely on it and are not prepared if/when the technology fails. Equally bad is that people often fail to even consider the possibility that a piece of technology can fail.
G'day,
Yay Team !
It was the same when they put a Training Wheel on the Nose, because lots of hamfisted clumsy wannabes couldn't cope with Taildraggers (less Weight, and less Drag ; which are two great reasons why Glen Curtiss abandoned Nosewheels in about1913, or so...) ; on the one hand the incidence of Groundloops remained unchanged (because Tricycles can indeed weathercock & groundloop, too), while on.the other hand the incidences of all other types of Fatals went up...
Because in the Gripping Hand, any attempt to make a "Foolproof Aeroplane", historically, merely enables more Fools to evade being washed-out of Flight-School, and thus they progress to fly up into the Sky and put themselves in situations beyond their abilities with which to cope...; and then they die, after defeating the all Foolproofing for which they paid an extra premium price.
Defying Gravity is so much fun that it should always remain a bit obviously difficult, requiring of Learning, Skill, Experience, & Good Judgement...., in order to remain a safe thing in which to indulge oneself .
Least Familiarity breed Contempt, as the Cliche doth say...
In my humble opinion.
Anyway.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Excellent discussion Sir!
I'm so glad you said something about the chute.
Thanks for this. You make some excellent points.
Saying nearest airfield is easy. No sense in even trying to nurse a sick engine to a convenient airfield. Especially when scud running :)
Excellent analysis, well spoken and wonderful summary!
Rod Machado
Thank you kindly! Rod, I appreciate that!
Great job as always Scott.
Great advice and analysis as always
A new Flywire video, time to learn something. Always great content, thank you
Thanks Andrew!
Good advice Scott. I believe a lot of pilots get tunnel vision when an emergency happens and do not keep their options open.
Excellent video, totally agree.
I think criticism of this pilot is unwarranted... he kept on his toes and got it safely on the ground.
Didn’t really criticize him in particular. More the Cirrus mindset.
Great video Scott
I'm not going to critique the pilot, as he walked away and that's what counts. However, as you say consider all options before deploying the chute. It must be very tempting but think it could be safer to use as a last result not as the first choice.
Fly the aircraft until all motion stops. Anything less is giving up.
Western half of the US (except mountainous) ROADS are my “go to”..... Nebraska, Kansas, New Mexico, eastern Colorado etc. I have flown directly over straight roads for miles nursing a sick engine to get to remote strips. If it quits ( which I always assume it will) you are set up to land straight ahead. Always be aware of power lines parallel to the road. This is where centerline practice pays off....practice on narrow runways.
The lady that I was thought by back in 83-86 instructed since 43....She always said fly fly fly airplane no matter what...
Top shelf as always thank you sir
There are no procedures in the Cirrus POH for off field landings. If you're higher than 500 ft agl, pull the chute. If the engine is running rough, returning to an airport seems like a smart move.
Great video! Thanks for putting this together and highlighting the importance of emergency training - you're right on the money in my opinion.
great info Sr.!!
Good advice. Thank you Bob Hoover, and Scott Perdue. & BrYan Turner for comedy relief.
That’s the trouble with single use emergency tools: life rafts, brs rockets, emergency parachutes, even bullets. You never know if they’re good until you pull the trigger.
Which is why they should never be part of the game plan. Those are last ditch tools for use when everything has failed and you have nothing left to loose. If you wouldn't do a thing without that emergency equipment, then you probably shouldn't do it with the emergency equipment.
@@mytech6779 last ditch is also part of any game plan.
@@mytech6779 So we should all, for example, stop flying above the water just because our safety equipment might fail (you likely wouldn't survive in water without safety equipment)? Doesn't feel very practical. There are plenty of situations where emergency equipment is an essential part of the game plan.
Clear and concise!
Excellent analysis, I have always been impressed with CAPS, but wondered if it had and affect on pilot behaviour and decision making.
Scott: My 24 y/o grandson works for Cirrus assisting with new owner instruction. Surely he knows all about this but I'm going to send him the link as another reminder for him to fly as if there was no CAPS. Thanks for the video.
Bill, my son who rebuilt his 172, took him 3 year's, he has no cap eather, but he has been taught to fly the plane. He flew to Marana Az from Guntersville Alabama. He's been flying for 25 year's. The one thing I have said you take No Chance's Ever.
Thank you Scott ..just gained another subscriber..Sorry Dan but Scott and Juan B are the true Dynamic Duo when it comes to this pilot stuff!!!
Thanks and welcome!
Good video. Nice to see a Strike Eagle Bro making it on YT!
Great analysis! Subscribed.
Very good points.
Another good one Scott also very informative. (Did you take note BrYan?) Always enjoy your videos. Until next time. 😎
Wise words. Thank you
Agreed about the ForeFlight glider ring and maneuvering to land without power being misleading. Simulating an engine out in the pattern in my 182 I had to abort and add power.
How is it misleading, has it ever been advertised as anything other than straight and level distance?
100% agree. Pilots are people, and we can only work to the level we're trained for and the level we're capable of performing at. The CAPS system has effectively replaced the pilot's perceived need for training and competency in flyiing + landing in an engine-out situation. Too bad. I'll keep my skills up, and hope you do too. (Cirrus pilots)
This is why I only fly bush planes. I can land pretty much anywhere.
@@TugIronChief Bottle?
I’m CAPS pull 100 and I’m so thankful the chute worked! I didn’t have the options this pilot did.
Good on you!
Two of my friends were #7. I was supposed to do a 50 hour on the plane the next day. Got a call from the pilot to "give me the day off tomorrow". Why? "The plane's in a tree in Alabama."
People can say what they (uninformedly) want about Cirrus - but as a mechanic on them for about 10 years, and a lot of passenger time, there's nothing else I'd rather be in.
I liken the CAPS to avalanche beacons. Allow me to explain. I met an author in Switzerland who was trying to make people aware of the fact the avalanche beacon gave people false confidence to push further into avalanche-prone, back country, thus the beacon was actually causing more casualties than it may have been preventing in his opinion and he presented some rather convincing data to support his discoveries. Airmanship must be taught and learned with the chute as a "plan-b, c, d", etc. I can see humans getting a false sense of confidence with the chute and stretching these situations more than they should. Glad they survived.
This is a true observation!
When you bet on making the things you would like to accomplish, ( a major airport ) seems altitude, ideas, and airspeed are the ones you really have to work with...but a CAPS system is a nice backup to have when you bet that you will have the first three covered to land, and lose!
Duke Cunningham said "Have a plan, have a backup plan, [then] be prepared for _that_ not to work."
Great video
I am very familiar with that area. He would have had to cross interstate 10 and turn 90° to land.
Plan A wasted time and options. But he's alive and I wasn't there. That silence must be nerve racking. So good job.
Another great episode…
Had a friend deploy CAPS after partial power loss over mountainous terrain in Mexico. It for sure saved his life but he did have some back injuries
After reading the comments, I thought I would mention this…
Relying on the accuracy of a moving map glide circle distance may not be an accurate option. One should test the concept in your own particular airplane. Any aerodynamic changes to the airframe (STOL kits, VG’s, flap gap seals, etc) would have an effect on gliding distance. A new prop, for example, might also affect gliding distance. Check for any improvement in glide (at weights you normally fly) when pulling the prop to high pitch. Some airplanes realize a change and some don’t.
It’s easy to change the glide ratio, at least with ForeFlight, to accommodate your actual glide ratio. While maybe not the final answer, an accuracy adjusted glide circle can be a better tool for your reference should you actually need it.
,
I’m glad no one got hurt and walked away from his Aircraft
This is actually a really fascinating discussion. Essentially the CAPS system needs to to be integrated into the engine out ABCDE process for these planes. You can't make CAPS a backup to ABCDE but you also can't make ABCDE a backup to CAPS. Airspeed first, best place to land with CAPS and without, Checklist which should culminate with pulling CAPS, then Declare emergency and Execute your landing.
Exactly right!
If I catch your drift correctly - you're advocating flying to a safe area where you can deploy the chute successfully rather than try to make a questionable airfield....but in this case that tactic wouldn't have been the best one because the danged thing didn't work! I'd try for a landing site of some sort every time given a choice. As far as I'm concerned, the chute is the recourse of last resort!
I totally agree!
I’ve always thought the plane was safer but it probably attracted a disproportionate number of pilots who had a tendency towards recklessness and others who lack confidence in their ability either with or without good reason.
The Cirrus aircraft are excellent designs. IMHO the problem is that, like the Bonanza that gained the reputation of being a "doctor killer" you have a bunch of inexperienced pilots who can afford the plane but haven't the experience to manage it properly.
Excellent video. I think one key is to have a mental number in mind as to descent rate to ground -- ie., I have two minutes, or whatever, keeping in mind that maneuvering in the last 15-30 seconds is likely not practical because at that stage you are committed to a landing spot and maneuvering aggressively risks a stall/spin. For my money, I try to maneuver to an airport initially and then a road secondarily, commit and take my chances there. It always sounds and seems easier sitting here on my couch though.
Great point!
Sticking to my push-bike, but interesting all the same. I went up with a pilot friend in a group owned 1946 Aeronca Chief west of London at Popham over thirty years ago. The local Spit doing the rounds at the time which was a great thrill to see. That Spit is no longer; I wonder about the Chief. On the way to take-off the pilot told me not to mention to his wife that the 'plane was just out of the workshop after having collided with one of the airfield hedges during a ground roll. I was not tempted to bail.
This is one of perhaps 15% of crashes I estimate might have been avoided by a couple hours sailplane lessons. Gliding and budgeting limited flying energy shouldn't be yet more intellectualized background info, but a viscerally prioritized and familiar process. I think a series could be done on benefits of glider mindsets to powered flight, as in the B767 Gimli Glider and other incidents.
Well most places are still teaching that a plane has a single best glide speed, without giving the adjustment for weight. (Meanwhile they still adjust Va, which is physical/engineering nonsense that was started by misinterpreting an old *design* regulation.) Best glide speed changes similar to stall speed, not exactly the same but roughly its close enough. Now you don't need to calculate it down to the exact pound of fuel remaining in the tank but having a general idea before takeoff of the adjusted speeds for various weights is handy. (Calculate best glide at MTOW, a normal takeoff, normal landing, and when fully light(pilot, no fuel, no cargo) as part of a new model familiarization.)
Exceptional commentary, thank you for sharing.
Great details, I learned a lot. It sounds like Cirrus went through thorough testing developing their chute. I hope the chute in Mike's Scrappy is up to the task.
Looking forward to your chat Monday night.
Mike is an amazing engineer, I'm pretty sure it will work.
@@FlyWirescottperdue Yes 100% agree Patey's What if 's attitude, .test, test, break, Fix test, as a Engineer, Knuckle buster,
Machinist AND a well rounded Pilot..Id bet my life.(And for those that...yah I was there..)
Great info. I have I small aircraft that is equipped with s BRS. It had the rocket and shoot replaced last year.
I will contact the manufacturer and ask about it. Thank You Sir!
I whole heartedly agree. Get out of trouble? The chute is a tool to be used when appropriate.
I believe the same with motorcyclists.
Full coverage insurance does not replace skill, reflexes , and riding time in the saddle. I personally have 103 k miles on my 2005 Yamaha. Never been down never had full coverage ins.
Hmmm. Good point about the Garman. Wonder if they could add a second user defined glide ring to the map with a minimum maneuvering altitude, to better visualize the range before really needed to get it on the ground.
I've been wondering why the glass panels don't have an engine out glide feature for years.
Chutes are great if that's your thing. I don't know that I would even depend on a chute unless I had a wing fall off or catastrophic failure otherwise. I'd rather depend on piloting skills first. Maybe I'm an old school new kid on the block. I don't know.
Just found you. Liked it. Subscribed. Thanks!
Thanks and welcome!
The same old rule always applies even with a chute, Fly The Plane.
Most folks don't take into account that every 10 years you need to overhaul the CAPS system at 10000.00 or more. Which is a big bill to pay!
YUP Scott Yelled EXACTLY THAT when after picking up a Mooney in the Sierra's the frig N intake FELL OFF!
Mikey Do that Flying SIT!!
Landed,no damage A&P chk work ok..2 wks later @ Night blew a Jug OFF
Landed , sold Air Plane!
Intake fell off? What in the world?
Based on its age, this airplane had the chute overhauled/repacked since it was installed by the factory. The repack interval is 10 years. So the Cirrus community will be very interested in who did that work.
Not a Cirrus guy, but is the rocket/igniter serviced too or just a chute re-pack? Sounds like it was an igniter issue not pulling the chute out?
@@danr597 as I recall, the rocket motors are replaced during the service
Sorry. Question answered ! Love your videos Gunny
If a bit of time is spent with the garmin pilot or foreflight manual (no excuses for not) the user will have set their buffer for the emergency glide ring (appropriate to the terrain and such) so that it does not show where you will hit the ground.
Scott, I agree with your assessment of this accident. You still gotta do the pilot sh!t even though you have a "get out of jail free card" in the caps system. It's a good technology but you gotta have your plan A,B and C and maybe even D, at the same time reserving that chute pull for the appropriate time.
I think it would be nice if there is a way to check the ballistics to make sure their powder is dry and she's ready to fire when called for.
Europe did successful spin trials on Cirrus aircraft? That's the first I've heard of this. Cirrus SR22 engine Failure in Climb and No Chute! What would you do? I'd buy a Bonanza as soon as and if I get out of this predicament. There have been many, many chute failures on the Cirrus aircraft. And many, many that the passengers did not walk away. Aviation is no place for fiction.
A dirt road, although rough, should be relatively free of utility poles and vehicles, I guess.
I tried from 1500 feet to check glide range in a 172 and was amazed how far I could glide.
... And I bet it would go 10% more without the fan turning. What I don't like about these latest stall spins is the very small angled empennage areas. Does anyone but me like the surfaces of the old CH-47 or round tailed J-3 or C 180?
Good afternoon from SE Louisiana 12 Jun 21.
G'day,
Yay Team !
I have a Ballistic Recovery Parachute, it's only crashed twice..., never been deployed ; but it's second prang involved Spinning-in from 300 feet while turning onto Final Approach, and the impact broke a tear in the Fibre-Glass "Muzzle" - which deployed the little Drogue-Chute....., leaving the 24-ft Main still packed & atop it's Deployment Spring...., (if ever I really needed to I reckon I could make wooden Moulds & use 2-part Epoxy to saturate the torn Fibres - then wrap it in Gladwrap before fitting the Moulds & applying Clamps to force the Wound together while the Epoxy goes off...).
But I can't really imagine any reason to rebuild my Aeroplane, let alone it's almost unused Parachute.
It came to me when I bought the almost-completed Scratch-built-from Plans Project, so I mounted it behind the seat & deploying up & out & back at 45 degrees to everything, from below the Trailing-Edge of the Wing on the Left side of the Fuselage, through an Eliptical Cutout in the Sheetmetal Hatch in the Fuselage - with the 'Chute-Container's "Mouth" protruding slightly on the forward Lip...
But when failing to clear the Fence on a (stupid) Downwind Takeoff, there was nothing my 'Chute could've done to help anything which mattered - so I left it alone.
Then when Canada John bought his 35 Hp Mk-3 Skycraft Scout I sold him my (then) once-crashed/never-deployed BRS 'Chute ; and when I bought the Engine from his Estate, afterwards, the Coronor boxed up the Rotax-377, the Altimeter & ASI & Pitot & Tubing, and the 'Chute and I was given the whole Box at the Court-House when I showed up for the Engine...; thus my Parachute found it's own way straight back to my Camp after having been sold..., (like a Conman's Sheedog !).
When I fitted it into my Aeroplane, I justified it's weight-penalty while considering the genuine plausibility of catastrophic Structural Failure in a multiply much-modified, heavier, over-powered & then autodidactically redesigned version of what had originally begun as a foot-launched Aerodynamically-controlled Hang-Glider (VJ-24, to the 10 Hp VJ-24e, then into the 22 Hp VJ-24w...).
When I sold it to Canada John it was a last (desperate) attempt to give him a chance of surviving his decision to Go Flying.
Some people should not persist in trying to play with Aeroplanes, and Johnny was one of them ; but he could be remarkably stubborn in the pursuit of his eccentricities.
Check out,
"REQUIEM FOR A REDHEAD...; Crashanalysis of John William Robson, & His Mk-3 Skycraft Scout."
to get the 15 minute version of his story ; he was one of Canada's greatest Adventurers, but Aeroplanes were not his strong suit.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Going by the commentary, I take it that the Foreflight display led the pilot to initially believe that he would make airport A? On the whole, given the cards he was dealt I think he did a pretty good job, not perfect, but I'm not going to Monday morning quarterback him for being mislead by the tech and his training. Big thumbs up for recognising the problem and doing something about it.
Don’t know if he used ForeFlight or had an EFB.
Any device can fail. Always practice the "Plan B"..
The safety technology that some people use because they flew intentionally into bad condition and some don't pull for personal pride. The concept will undoubtedly be refined over time, and offered on more aircraft, but it only does its job if the pilot does theirs.
Love your content and personality Scott! I'm not a pilot, but after having served 30 years in U.S. Naval Aviation... the flight world is still in my blood. Is there a general rule of thumb on glide distance vs. altitude? Seems to me that I read something a while back that it's a 2:1 ration. i.e. you can generally expect to glide 2 miles for every 1,000 in altitude? It's that thinking that had me stumped as to why 4SR couldn't make it to an airport 10 miles away when they had 7,000 (9K - 2K field elevation) to glide through. Thanks Scott!
There is math and there is the real world... with real people, they don't often meet.
Scott can you write out that "risk conious stacis (sp) thing? I'm intrigued and want to do more research because I believe it's 100% true and would lead to even better CAPS stats with regard to saving lives when the plane is operated in the same way one would operate any other GA aircraft safely. Of course it's probably impossible to know how many chute deployments came as a result of this phenomena but it's certainly greater than 0.
Great video
risk homeostasis (EDIT: fixed typo)
Thanks got explaining why the parachute may not have deployed. Would be even more interesting to hear why the engine failed. Was that avoidable?