Syndication

Pull early, pull often!

CAPS may not be the best option!

Let's be straight. Flying is risky, and nothing can eliminate all of the risk.

The CAPS parachute system offers a Cirrus pilot one last safety option. But it may not be the best option.

The thread, G3 Turbo Down on Highway in Duluth Today, prompted several concerns. This incident involved a demonstration flight that developed engine problems and ultimately an engine failure during the return to airport. The pilot landed safely on a rural highway with wide shoulders and reportedly no traffic, parallel to the north shore of Lake Superior.

With this successful off-airport landing, a chorus of posts arose to question the use of CAPS and the "pull early, pull often" mantra.

No doubt, a CAPS pull over Lake Superior would be highly risky. The water is very cold. Even in summer! Rescue will take time. Water landings under canopy have seriously injured the occupants. CAPS would not be a good option.

With prevailing winds blowing off the north shore, gliding back to land will face headwinds, hence you would cover less distance. A CAPS pull reduces your forward velocity to zero relative to the wind. Activating CAPS before gliding far enough on shore could result in being blown off shore by the wind. CAPS would not be a good option.

The highway in this incident was wide, relatively straight, without traffic, and rural with few structures or power lines visible in the news photos. The pilot from Cirrus Design was local and likely flew this route many times during demonstration flights. Local knowledge of good off-airport landing sights is a big advantage. Between a rolling off-airport landing on a wide, unobstructed road and a CAPS descent, CAPS would not be a better option.

Where else might CAPS not be the best option?

Fires?

Descending under canopy at 1700 feet per minute may keep you longer in proximity to the fire and smoke. If you have control, an emergency descent can be accomplished in excess of 5,000 feet per minute, three times faster. CAPS may not be the better option.

Inhospitable terrain?

If you have control, then maneuver to more hospitable terrain. Can you avoid cliffs or canyons and glide to a treed valley or slope? Can you maneuver to a mountain lake? Immediate activation of CAPS may not be a good option.

Near ships on the water?

One piece of advice when ditching of activating CAPS over water is to position your airplane in front of the boat or ship. You may be more easily seen by those looking forward of the ship. Bigger ships can take a long time to turn around. Immediate activation of CAPS may not be a good option.

High speed descents?

The demonstrated deployment speed, Vpd, is 133 knots. The canopy rigging tests were at 187 knots. One fatal accident involved the parachute separating from the airframe when the descent exceeded 270 knots. CAPS may not be a good option.

Except when you have no other better options!

Ultimately, CAPS is a safety feature that must be activated to do its work. Activation requires a decision to act. And a decision requires making choices.

As a Cirrus pilot who flies an aircraft equipped with CAPS, please plan ahead, think through the choices, prepare yourself, then practice.

Cheers
Rick

Posted 2 Jan 2009 14:22 by Rick Beach

Filed under: CAPS, inhospitable terrain, ditching, fires, aeronautical decision making

Comments

Pull early, pull often! wrote An Epistle on CAPS by Craig Albright

on 2 Jan 2009 17:12

Prompted by the thought-provoking post by Craig Albright on when to pull the chute, let me amplify his

Craig Sherman wrote re: CAPS may not be the best option!

on 6 Jan 2009 14:44

Funny, this is exactly the thought progression I work through on cross country trips. Where is the nearest airport, flat spot, dry spot, visible spot, downwind spot, etc., that I can use if I need to get down? Thanks for the great summary.

Robert Hancock wrote re: CAPS may not be the best option!

on 6 Jan 2009 17:29

Reading some other posts regarding the use of CAPS has lead me to believe using this feature is far from their last option available when things start going bad. It might be I misunderstood those positions. Bottom line, I started beliving it to be the last line of defense and unlikely that will change. Clearly, there are times when the use of CAPS would be obvious. Examples above, are but a few where it's use would not be quite as clear.

Rick Beach wrote re: CAPS may not be the best option!

on 6 Jan 2009 17:37

@Robert Hancock: CAPS is by definition your last option, since you cannot control the aircraft while under canopy, so that's the last control action you can take. However, when things go bad, you have options and need to decide when CAPS is the right choice for the action to take. It might be that you choose CAPS early in some situations and later in others. For instance, I'd pull early if I was over water and wanted to use the time to prepare for egress without the bother of hand flying.

If you lose control while flying, then pull CAPS. If you have control, then consider maneuvering to increase your survivability and rescue options before pulling CAPS.

Cheers

Rick

Robert Hancock wrote re: CAPS may not be the best option!

on 7 Jan 2009 10:59

"However, when things go bad, you have options and need to decide when CAPS is the right choice for the action to take."

" If you have control, then consider maneuvering to increase your survivability and rescue options before pulling CAPS."

Exactly my point(s).

Thanks,

Bob

Meredith Tcherniavsky wrote re: CAPS may not be the best option!

on 8 Jan 2009 6:04

I published an article in IFR Refresher, the magazine I edit, titled "Redefining the IMC Engine-Out." You can find it in the April 2008 edition, or if you're interested, I'd be happy to email you a PDF. In the article, I discussed the GPS Runway 27 approach into DLH. The IAF and procedure turn take you way out over Lake Superior at 4000' MSL or about 3500' AGL. I flew that approach in January 2008 while visiting the factory with a student to take delivery of his new SR22. As I looked out the window down at the frozen lake, I thought, well, if we had an engine problem and had to pull the chute out there, I doubt I'd last long in that freezing water. Maybe it would be better to point the nose toward the shore and try to use the prevailing wind to glide as far toward the land before giving up and pulling the big red handle. So yes, I agree that pulling the chute is not the best idea 100% of the time. It depends on the situation and we owe it to ourselves and our passengers to think these things through on every flight. Fly safely, folks.

Charles Barnett wrote re: CAPS may not be the best option!

on 9 Jan 2009 15:16

Interesting the one about flight over water and caps activation.

You live on an island and oyu are over water every time you take off.It focuses the mind.I've been doing it for over 30 years,sooner or later.......................

1700fpm ROD is a lot to hit water at.

Here's something to consider: controlled flight (albeit glide),to within a few feet of the surface ,then caps activation to reduce forward speed to single figures and caps activation to produce the vertical profile .

Now the question is this..............how long does the sequence take between pulling the handle and the canopy beginning to do its job at taking the airplane weight, and before the terminal vertical velocity of 1700fpm is established?

Hitting water at ANY forward or vertical velocity is never going to be a good thing,maybe we can use caps to mitigate in these situations.