How to Land a Cirrus
-
Connor
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:21 pm
[url=[/url]
Here’s an eye opening video. At 4 min into it this guys given an engine failure at 1500 feet it looks like . Don’t do a cause check to try and solve the problem , don’t turn back to the airport , don’t pick a suitable field or a road just pull the parachute.
Here’s an eye opening video. At 4 min into it this guys given an engine failure at 1500 feet it looks like . Don’t do a cause check to try and solve the problem , don’t turn back to the airport , don’t pick a suitable field or a road just pull the parachute.
-
digits
[quote author=Connor link=topic=9191.msg25227#msg25227 date=1539562236]
[url=[/url]
Here’s an eye opening video. At 4 min into it this guys given an engine failure at 1500 feet it looks like . Don’t do a cause check to try and solve the problem , don’t turn back to the airport , don’t pick a suitable field or a road just pull the parachute.
[/quote]
What did you expect? It's a movie demonstrating the cirrus chute system in a sim...
But even if it was real, I'm sure that if the pilot tried to burn back and missed the field, or picked a road and clipped a wing, you would have complained he didn't pull the chute. As soon as an emergency happens in a cirrus, the pilot is screwed. No matter what he does, he will always have made the wrong decision ::)
It reminds me of a story an ex-military instructor once told me. During a training mission a single engine trainer got a real engine failure. The crew managed to land back at the field and saved the plane. They almost got fired because they didn't eject, as that was the appropriate action for said airplane.
Use all the tools you have available, if that means pulling the chute, so be it.
[url=[/url]
Here’s an eye opening video. At 4 min into it this guys given an engine failure at 1500 feet it looks like . Don’t do a cause check to try and solve the problem , don’t turn back to the airport , don’t pick a suitable field or a road just pull the parachute.
[/quote]
What did you expect? It's a movie demonstrating the cirrus chute system in a sim...
But even if it was real, I'm sure that if the pilot tried to burn back and missed the field, or picked a road and clipped a wing, you would have complained he didn't pull the chute. As soon as an emergency happens in a cirrus, the pilot is screwed. No matter what he does, he will always have made the wrong decision ::)
It reminds me of a story an ex-military instructor once told me. During a training mission a single engine trainer got a real engine failure. The crew managed to land back at the field and saved the plane. They almost got fired because they didn't eject, as that was the appropriate action for said airplane.
Use all the tools you have available, if that means pulling the chute, so be it.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]a single engine ... real engine failure. The crew managed to land back at the field and saved the plane. They almost got fired because they didn't eject[/quote]
Funny you mention that. I know of another pilot, similar situation, on top of a cloud
deck in an F-86 with short igniters (replaced with long igniters in later marks) that
flamed out.
Normal procedure would be to eject. This pilot did a dead-stick instrument approach
and landing to an unfamiliar airfield, and got a commendation in his logbook for saving
her Majesty's aircraft.
[img width=444 height=500][/img]
Fun fact: despite the fact that the RCAF thought he was a pretty good fighter pilot,
TC maintains that he is a [b]shitty pilot[/b], because he has the [i]same last name as me[/i].
Do recall that he only had a few minutes of battery power for his flight control hydraulics
after the flameout.
Imagine how much of a better job, a TC Inspector could have done!
Military pilots are such losers, compared to any TC Inspector, that can't landing a fucking
tailwheel trainer, and steal the personal property of pilots they don't like.
Funny you mention that. I know of another pilot, similar situation, on top of a cloud
deck in an F-86 with short igniters (replaced with long igniters in later marks) that
flamed out.
Normal procedure would be to eject. This pilot did a dead-stick instrument approach
and landing to an unfamiliar airfield, and got a commendation in his logbook for saving
her Majesty's aircraft.
[img width=444 height=500][/img]
Fun fact: despite the fact that the RCAF thought he was a pretty good fighter pilot,
TC maintains that he is a [b]shitty pilot[/b], because he has the [i]same last name as me[/i].
Do recall that he only had a few minutes of battery power for his flight control hydraulics
after the flameout.
Imagine how much of a better job, a TC Inspector could have done!
Military pilots are such losers, compared to any TC Inspector, that can't landing a fucking
tailwheel trainer, and steal the personal property of pilots they don't like.
-
digits
[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=9191.msg25247#msg25247 date=1539660316]
Funny you mention that. I know of another pilot, similar situation, on top of a cloud
deck in an F-86 with short igniters (replaced with long igniters in later marks) that
flamed out.
Normal procedure would be to eject. This pilot did a dead-stick instrument approach
and landing to an unfamiliar airfield, and got a commendation in his logbook for saving
her Majesty's aircraft.
[/quote]
Might have been a different time, different superior, different country maybe. Either way we agree that an eject is considered a normal procedure in case of a major failure, such as an engine failure.
Can we really blame the barely-current-flies-one-hour-every-month-PPL cirrus pilot for using the chute instead of trying to dead stick it in case of an engine failure if even the highly trained military pilots are taught to use their chute in case of an engine failure?
Funny you mention that. I know of another pilot, similar situation, on top of a cloud
deck in an F-86 with short igniters (replaced with long igniters in later marks) that
flamed out.
Normal procedure would be to eject. This pilot did a dead-stick instrument approach
and landing to an unfamiliar airfield, and got a commendation in his logbook for saving
her Majesty's aircraft.
[/quote]
Might have been a different time, different superior, different country maybe. Either way we agree that an eject is considered a normal procedure in case of a major failure, such as an engine failure.
Can we really blame the barely-current-flies-one-hour-every-month-PPL cirrus pilot for using the chute instead of trying to dead stick it in case of an engine failure if even the highly trained military pilots are taught to use their chute in case of an engine failure?
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]highly trained military pilots[/quote]
Not sure I am communicating clearly.
TC has repeatedly stated that a military pilot that could fly a dead
stick instrument approach in a Sabre, and who's day job was to fly
single-pilot high-speed low-altitude all-weather one-way nuclear
strike missions in supersonic jet fighters is a
[b]SHIT PILOT[/b]
I accept and embrace the rhetoric of my elders and betters
at TC. Given the above, a Cirrus pilot, whom TC has certified
and approves of, should be a [b]MUCH BETTER[/b] pilot than
any shitty old military pilot that flies formation negative G
aerobatics close to the ground.
[img width=500 height=337][/img]
So, what's the fucking problem? A Cirrus pilot is a better pilot
than that, according to TC, and should have NO PROBLEM with
a simple fucking engine failure.
Here's the [b]SHIT PILOTS[/b] according to TC:
[img width=500 height=392][/img]
Not sure I am communicating clearly.
TC has repeatedly stated that a military pilot that could fly a dead
stick instrument approach in a Sabre, and who's day job was to fly
single-pilot high-speed low-altitude all-weather one-way nuclear
strike missions in supersonic jet fighters is a
[b]SHIT PILOT[/b]
I accept and embrace the rhetoric of my elders and betters
at TC. Given the above, a Cirrus pilot, whom TC has certified
and approves of, should be a [b]MUCH BETTER[/b] pilot than
any shitty old military pilot that flies formation negative G
aerobatics close to the ground.
[img width=500 height=337][/img]
So, what's the fucking problem? A Cirrus pilot is a better pilot
than that, according to TC, and should have NO PROBLEM with
a simple fucking engine failure.
Here's the [b]SHIT PILOTS[/b] according to TC:
[img width=500 height=392][/img]
-
Slick Goodlin
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 6:46 pm
I’m amazed nobody has posted the annual Cirrus fly in
[img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... Bb6xB_qtrr[/img]
[img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... Bb6xB_qtrr[/img]
-
Rookie Pilot
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:44 am
Andy,
You're a great guy. I met you. You gave me a nice tour at YSH a few years back. I remember it fondly.
Let it go.
Bitterness only hurts you. Trust me. My daughter has cancer. For the second time.
I know that battle very, very well.
Just passing that along. Be well. Share the good stuff. You're a wealth of knowledge.
You're a great guy. I met you. You gave me a nice tour at YSH a few years back. I remember it fondly.
Let it go.
Bitterness only hurts you. Trust me. My daughter has cancer. For the second time.
I know that battle very, very well.
Just passing that along. Be well. Share the good stuff. You're a wealth of knowledge.
-
David MacRay
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
You're right but some of the stuff he writes is increadible. I might struggle to let it go too.
Odd how even in these modern anti bully times, they are still out there.
I try to leave them in the past but can't forget a few bosses I worked around.
Odd how even in these modern anti bully times, they are still out there.
I try to leave them in the past but can't forget a few bosses I worked around.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 2 Replies
- 2662 Views
-
Last post by Scudrunner
-
- 2 Replies
- 1094 Views
-
Last post by Colonel
-
- 2 Replies
- 813 Views
-
Last post by Scudrunner
