Please help me make sense of this light sport fatal accident

[ussyorktown]

They might make some more "go along to get along" grubby drone lawyers. I haven't lived my life that way and haven't seen many other people like me, except for maybe Martin Luther or "man for all seasons Thomas Moore." I am the "man for all altitudes"

By the way, I was using flight following and FAA said "go to 10 5". I said, "did you say go to 10 5?" FAA said, yes, go to 10.5.

So, I went to 10.3 and sailed along nicely above the turbulance over the Dalles of the Columbia River. I know that we can fly 2,000 above terrain even though that is higher than 10k. I guess this is also OK if FAA says to do it. Must be like when a cop motions you to run a red light because he doing personal traffic control at that intersection.

[drseti]

I know that we can fly 2,000 above terrain even though that is higher than 10k.

True. That was one of the corrections FAA made to the Sport Pilot rule when they updated it last year. Leaving out the Rocky Mountain Exemption was apparently an oversight in the original rule.

I guess this is also OK if FAA says to do it.

Yes and no. First, ATC has no way of knowing you're a Sport Pilot. The ARTCC radar operator may well have thought you were a private pilot. Second, the operative word here is pilot. As PIC, you are ultimately responsible for the flight (FAR 91.3), and are required to maintain VFR, ensure proper terrain and cloud clearance, see and avoid other traffic, comply with FARs, etc. You should not relinquish your command authority to a radar controller! The appropriate response to a clearance that would take you outside of Sport Pilot restrictions is a single word: "unable. Third (and most important) is that, under flight following, the controller does not assign altitudes. He or she might ask your altitude, require that you inform of any altitude changes, or even recommend an altitude, but the only altitude clearance they're allowed to give you is "maintain VFR." Are you sure that 10.5 wasn't a suggestion, not a clearance?

Now, in controlled airspace (classes B, C, and even D), the controller can give you altitude restrictions, or even a hard altitude. But flight following is different, and does not involve clearances of any kind. (People have gotten into trouble stumbling into restricted airspace while on flight following. The defense that "the controller didn't tell me" didn't hold up in enforcement situations.)

[ussyorktown]

Are you sure that 10.5 wasn't a suggestion, not a clearance?

No, he definately said "go to 10.5"
I said, "Did you tell me to go to 10.5?"
He said, "yes 10.5"

If he thought it was safer to be a 10.5 over the Columbia Gorge instead of 8.5 because of turbulance then I'll do what he says. Certainly a lot of wiggle room and w/ the FAA having to prove things in US District Court now-the thing would never have caused a violation.
Who would write the violation? The FAA who told me to do it? That would be "entrapment."
The act of government agents or officials that induces a person to commit a crime he or she is not previously disposed to commit.

Entrapment is a defense to criminal charges when it is established that the agent or official originated the idea of the crime and induced the accused to engage in it. If the crime was promoted by a private person who has no connection to the government, it is not entrapment. A person induced by a friend to sell drugs has no legal excuse when police are informed that the person has agreed to make the sale.

The rationale underlying the defense is to deter law enforcement officers from engaging in reprehensible conduct by inducing persons not disposed to commit crimes to engage in criminal activity. In their efforts to obtain evidence and combat crime, however, officers are permitted to use some deception. For example, an officer may pretend to be a drug addict in order to apprehend a person suspected of selling drugs. On the other hand, an officer cannot use chicanery or Fraud to lure a person to commit a crime the person is not previously willing to commit. Generally, the defense is not available if the officer merely created an opportunity for the commission of the crime by a person already planning or willing to commit it.

FAA, "ya know 10HA, its kind of nice up there at 10.5."
If 10HA then went up to 10.5 then I would be in violation.

But FAA says "go to 10.5" they surely can't bust me for doing what he said whether he had the authority to tell me that or not. Entrapment

[drseti]

Entrapment considerations aside, Dan, I think the issue here is twofold. One, ARTCC isn't supposed to be giving clearances to VFR flights receiving advisory radar services (this would be a reasonable defense to raise, in the case of enforcement action). But, second, the controller has no way of knowing you're not a Private pilot or above, entitled to be at 10.5, so it is incumbent upon the PIC not to accept a clearance that would cause him or her to violate the limitations of the pilot's license. (I have no doubt the FAA would use this to counter any defense you offer, should enforcement action occur).

[deltafox]

You might want to consider trying with either hand. (Right arm might be injured.) Try reaching for it with your eyes closed.

[Jim Stewart]

If you can't comply with an ATC clearance, you can always say "unable". You're the pilot, not them.

[jnmeade]

If you can't comply with an ATC clearance, you can always say "unable". You're the pilot, not them.

Absolutely what should have been said.

[cogito]

I'm all for the weight exemption, as long as the chute is optional. I would oppose an FAA mandate requiring one. Not sure if I'd want one myself, but I certainly wouldn't argue with anyone's choice to have one.

drseti, I agree the parachute should be optional, but I would like to find out why you, a CFI, wouldn't want a chute in the plane you teach in. If you don't consider a plane with a parachute safer, please elucidate.

I'm trying to decide what plane to buy next and on top of my "must have" list has been a parachute. but on the other hand a Diamond DA40 has what appears to be the best safety record of GA aircraft, and doesn't have a chute. I'm reconsidering and am looking for as much insight as I can get.

[cogito]

3) We suspect at least a few pilots thought they had a malfunctioning activating handle when in fact they simply had not pulled the handle with enough force to activate the system. It needs to be stressed that one not only pulls early, pulls often...but continues to pull/yank until activation occurs. Perhaps we should cease using the word "pull" and use "yank" as it implies a harder, quicker action better describing the necessary activating forces. (BRS is currently developing an electronically activated system that should provide more versatility in locating the activating handle, and in activation effectiveness)

there's a GRS parachute in a Sting (Galaxy Recovery System, I believe) and the POH says "PULL FIRMLY (25lbs.)" which I always thought was a hard enough pull to negate accidental rocket launches but easy enough for a pilot or passenger with adrenalin pumping to activate. This might be different from other ballistic parachute systems.

[drseti]

drseti, I agree the parachute should be optional, but I would like to find out why you, a CFI, wouldn't want a chute in the plane you teach in.

Fair question. Several considerations:

• Many of my students are heavy enough, and the LSA rules restrictive enough, that every pound counts. We can't fly most lessons with full tanks, but can carry enough fuel to be safe. A BRS weighs one hour of fuel. That tradeoff would compromise safety, IMHO.
  
  My practice area is over open farmlands with lots of good places to land. Riding the plane down to a dead-stick landing is in this case probably safer than floating down on a chute.
  
  My plane has a pretty good L/D ratio, and glides quite well. I have glider training, and my students are taught to pull power to idle on downwind and do glider landings. So, I feel they're probably safe to put the plane down on terra firma in an emergency.
  
  The BRS deployment is pyrotechnic. I'm not all that keen on carrying a bomb -- er, rocket, in my plane.
  
  Several accident reports suggest that the chute was pulled prematurely, when other options appeared (in hindsight) to be more desirable. BRS calls these saves. I'm not sure I agree.
  
  In the case of those accidents where a chute deploy occurred in really nasty weather, or over very hazardous terrain, one wonders if the pilot would have been there in the first place, absent a parachute. Again, are those cases really saves?

Of course, in the event of an inflight breakup, or midair collision, flying the plane down is not an option, and a parachute would definitely improve survivability. So, if there were no weight penalty (or a relaxation of the 1320 limit), and I were convinced that the rocket couldn't misfire, then I'd certainly reconsider.

[cogito]

I like the idea of dead-stick landing practice, smart.

I don't have the luxury of open farmland, I live in a city, but we have golf courses and concrete river washes like the one I set down on (engine out.) I often fly to Catalina, 18 miles over water, and ditching with fixed gear would not be enjoyable. Also, I figure I'll get my PPL someday and having an engine out at night without a parachute isn't a place I'd care to be either.

thanks drseti for your thoughtful response.

[designrs]

Has a BRS Chute ever misfired accidentally?

[FastEddieB]

Has a BRS Chute ever misfired accidentally?

I don't know of any from the Cirrus world.

They do occasionally go off post-impact.

[roger lee]

I don't believe so because it is mechanical and needs someone to pull the handle to cock back the striker pin far enough so it will release and strike the primers. Someone would need to pull the handle with 25-40 lbs of force to make that happen.

[designrs]

I flew a full-cockpit Cirrus simulator on an engine out and pulled the chute. There was no long cable. The handle just went "click" slightly. Anybody know if that is real-world chute engagement on Cirrus?