Emotional and Math-based thoughts on CAPS/BRS

[exM20K]

Rather than contribute to the thread drift in some other threads, i thought I'd share my thoughts on CAPS.  Apologies in advance if this is the wrong place for this post. Short version: I don't like the way the SR22 flies, so I don't own one.  The CAPS has nothing to do with it.

I have lived in a fly-in community of approx 100 homes and 65-ish based planes for 16 years. Living this way exposes me to a lot of pilots in a closer way than just hanging out at the airport, so maybe my perspective is a little different.  When 100LL went exponential in price (2007-8) and before the economy went pear-shaped late 2008, there were some 5+ Barons based on the field.  IIRC, 100LL was as high as $8 / gallon, and feeding a Baron $240/hour in fuel alone just didn't work for most of these owners.  One bought a turbine, and the others bought SR2x's.  In discussing this poor choice (I sold Diamonds, after all :-) )  they each said simply - after flying a twin, I don't want a single w/o the parachute.  It's an emotional, snake-brain thing that probably drove the decision to buy the twin in the first place.  I don't believe it's either right or wrong - it's just how they chose their aircraft.  LIkewise, after having datalink and de-ice, I wouldn't want to be without... stepping down in capability is difficult.

I'm a glider pilot, too.  Do I feel invincible in the event of an engine out in my Mooney? Of course not.  But on a good VFR day, I think the likelihood of getting hurt or dead after an engine failure is pretty low.  IMC raises the risk level, of course, but I train for that, too.  During my last PPP,  I did much simulated engine-out work with Parvez, including the ILS.  It can be done - just manage the energy state of your plane carefully (which includes flying as high as practical).   If you haven't read @Buster1's book on engine out survival tactics, I highly recommend it.  Widespread IMC and night also raise the risk level, but I'm confident that if I execute a forced landing wings-level and under control, my PAX and I will survive.  I fly in the Midwest, where most of the world is an emergency landing field.  If I flew over wilderness/mountains/water frequently, I might feel differently.

What injures and kills more pilots than anything else is something the pilot does wrong.  the Nall report tallies something like 75% of mishaps as pilot-caused.  73/76% non-fatal  / fatal.   Mechanical causes are 18% / 10%. Focus on the stuff that *does* hurt and kill pilots - stay current, brief your flights carefully, and take the whole ADM thing seriously.

So... regarding CAPS: Just how frequently is it a factor?  I cringe at the mention of "CAPS Saves" as though the helpless aviator would be dead but for the CAPS.  However, I rejoice in a life saved that was otherwise at risk.  Now, consider some numbers:

• Approximate GA fatal mishap rate:  0.54 / 1000 hours.  Cirrus' rate is broadly similar to the GA fleet.
• Approximate GA mishap rate: 3.45 / 1000 hours.
• The Cirrus fleet has approx 12 Million (my extrapolation from a 2 year old number) hours on it.
• The Chute has been pulled 114 times, IIRC
• Dividing it out, the CAPS pull rate is .01 / 1000 hours, which means
  • the GA fatal mishap rate is  more than 5x the CAPS pull rate
  • CAPS just doesn't get pulled very often - even as compared to rare fatal mishaps and much more so as compared to all mishaps. 

The Cirrus community has done an excellent job of instilling a culture of safety among new and used owners.  This emphasis on training has brought the fatal rate for SR2x aircraft in line with its peers.  But the CAPS seems to have little to do with overall safety-of-flight outcomes.  Pilots of Cirrus and other brands continue to be injured or killed by things they did, CAPS or no CAPS.

I conclude that the CAPS has a very small impact on reducing fatal mishaps. By training and making sure that my decisions and actions are not a link in a chain of events leading up to a mishap, I can have a much more meaningful influence on the safety of flight.  If BRS were available for the Mooney, I'd consider it, but I wouldn't put a very high value on its likelihood to keep me unhurt or un-dead.

 

-dan

 

[N201MKTurbo]

I feel the same way Dan. 

While there is no way of knowing what the outcome of the 114 pulls would be without the parachute, you could analyze similar situations and see what the statistical outcomes would be and subtract the survivors from the saved number. 

The bottom line is there are a lot of things that you can do to reduce your risk while flying that have far greater impact than having a parachute.

 

I wonder how many of the 114 people who pulled, while on the way down broke out of the clouds or whatever and thought "Huh, I could have made this..."

[Ibra]

Good you think about it, I did similar maths and I decided to fly without CAPS, I sill wish to have one but for me mainly for night & weather/mountain flying 

For distance touring mostly flying with wife, we fly an M20J (partnership but I also rent Dimonds & Cirrus), I think an off-field countryside landing is challenging in a Mooney but with some training (and luck) I can overcome an engine failure, anyway it is tiny compared to other things I can somehow control (e.g. hitting terrain, loss of control it after 1h in IMC or convective weather, running out of fuel...)

So here is how I go about it, I go solo and practice field landings on my worst case scenario: 1000ft runway patch from anywhere in a 1000ft agl circuit height, I have my own conclusions on how I should fly Mooney on that profile without stalling or high energy crashing, it is lot scary but doable and I believe anything else would be far easier (3000ft agl engine failure anywhere near a 3000ft runway is a walk in the park), for anything bellow 500ft agl, it will be dead ahead anyway on slowest touch down (roughly same chances as pulling chute in a Cirrus), so I am still left with 500ft-1000ft heights/runways to keep me awake during the night  note that I started 3000ft/3000ft, 2000ft/2000ft, 1500ft/1500ft, hard to get lower as wings needs to be level at 300ft on final glide path...

On weather minima and engine failure, an easy engine failure will need 2500ft cloud-base, even in VMC anything bellow 2500agl just happens fast but at the end picture would look like an EFATO at 500ft or 500ft stable final to the runway ahead, if cloud-base is 1000ft I am better at 2500ft rather than 500ft as far as engine failure is concerned, then pulling CAPS in IMC may put you in the same boat as cloud break with no prop at 500ft 

I have flown other stuff (e.g. gliders, vintages, STOLs, military jets...), most of that was single-seat flying A-to-A in super VMC and I was always ready for field landing or bailout on parachute, that experience does not fit well when trying to put 1.2T touring aircraft with Vbg/Vs0 = 90kts/60kts in 500ft runway patch, especially the Mooney (too much speed is not always your friend) but as I said it is doable if you have a good idea on you & aircraft can achieve and happy with what you can't  

I teach field landings in DA40/C172 to students: we do it from 2500ft agl on typical 3000ft long patch with teaching stop at 500ft, I have seen few botched ones on tight fields (including mines) but in training we can always cut/put power when we want  and one can argue that DA40s stalls wing level all the way and C172s are draggy and easy to slowdown but to be honest my best memorable trips were in a Mooney (and fast Gliders) along big chunk of mountains !

Edited February 17, 2020 by Ibra

[carusoam]

Thanks, Dan!

I remember the day... having to consider a twin or something... ‘safer’

We went with more modern equipment... not that it was modern, but just more whole and better maintained... less run-out.

Thanks for sharing your Math vs. Myth approach.

Best regards,

-a-

[steingar]

Most accidents are either in the take-off or landing phase, where you're too low for the 'chute to save you.

[201er]

On 2/17/2020 at 10:56 AM, steingar said:

Most accidents are either in the take-off or landing phase, where you're too low for the 'chute to save you.

And too often too low for the second engine to save you either. 

[jlunseth]

Any additional safety device is good, but I prefer working on my skills.  Working on emergency skills does not just train the pilot what to do in the emergency, should one happen, but trains the pilot how not to get there in the first place. 

[KLRDMD]

I do fly over the mountains on essentially every trip. And every trip has some portion of cruise flight that, if I lost the engine, would not end in a good day. Survivable? Maybe, maybe not. It just depends on the exact timing of the engine loss, winds, density altitude, etc. I keep toying with the idea of going back to a twin (or potentially a 'chute, but I doubt I would do that). For the time being I'm managing risk the best I can but I do have these concerns on pretty much every flight I make.

[carusoam]

Staying single engine has some value in the area of engine out on T/O... Twins are not perfect in this area... until above the blue line...

Going turbine... seems to improve engine out frequencies....

We have a few MSers that have traded in their Mooneys for something more powerful and faster and turbine... 

Plus... I’m always trying to spend Ken’s hard earned AMUs... the opportunity arises every few years...

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/list/manufacturer/piper/model/jetprop

 

There are at least two MSers with one of these... after accumulating Long Body time...

Best regards,

-a-

 

[Jerry 5TJ]

7 hours ago, carusoam said:

There are at least two MSers with one of these... after accumulating Long Body time...

In my case .... I transitioned to a JetProp from my C model.  (OK, I had flown a few other types, too) A few years later I retired, sold that JetProp and bought an Ovation.  But I missed the stench of JetA in the morning and so I got another JetProp.  

[carusoam]

Smells like Victory!   

-a-