Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed. [Archive]

Dave S

April 25th 04, 03:09 AM

Yea.. its usually a good idea to see whats going on before seriously
considering a purchase.

There have been a spate of accidents involving the aircraft (percentage
wise, since there arent as many out there). Only a few have had
successful parachute deployments. People (as in newsgroup members) have
speculated that people with more money than ability are buying this
slick, high performance plane with little experience in something
similar. Its also speculated that pilots may be engaging in riskier
behaviors (using the presence of the BRS chute as a crutch) than they
otherwise would.

The Cirrus looks nice, and it sure is fast. However, I was kinda
wondering about you not being able to afford it without being in a large
partnership. I read into it that you would be in a position to cover
about 1/4th to 1/9th of the costs - I'm hoping you took into account
hangar, annuals, INSURANCE (Insurance on such a large group tends to get
the "Club/School rate", and with the relative accident rate as high as
it is, it might be pricey for inexerienced fliers).

If you want to try something that isnt TOO old and has "decent" numbers
look at the used Grumman tigers. 140 kts on 180 hp isnt half shabby, and
it can carry a decent load (2+bags+ over 4 hours of fuel). You might be
able to get that alone, or with ONE partner, which simplifies things a lot.

Good Luck..
Dave

Dennis wrote:

> Holy crap! I guess I should have done some more research first... :(
>
> I really, really, really like the performance spec's and looks of the
> Currus.. My wife read your comment and now she's put off on the idea...
> Gonna have to find something else now before she but the breaks on a new
> plane purchase..
>
> Dennis
> N3868J
> MyAirplane.com
>
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I personally would not buy one of these airplanes until:
>>
>>1) The airframe life limit of 4,030 hours is rescinded or at least
>
> tripled;
>
>>and
>>
>>2) They find out why these planes are falling out of the sky with such
>>regularity and do something about it. If this behavior keeps up, the FAA
>
> is
>
>>likely to ground the entire fleet; and
>>
>>3) Something is done about the atrocious quality control problems that
>>Cirrus has been having.
>>
>>
>
>
>

Peter R.

April 25th 04, 03:34 AM

Dennis wrote:

> I would like to get others ideas in regards to if I should do a lease-back
> at my local FBO, or take on 4 to 9 other partners.. I will be going to the
> Rochester fly in next month (http://www.rochesterwings.com) and hope to
> solidify a deal with Cirrus..

Dennis, no comment on the Cirrus, but I want to mention that I am
planning on attending the Rochester Wings event, too (barring weather,
maintenance, or health issues). See you there.

--
Peter

Don Tuite

April 25th 04, 05:08 AM

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:34:34 -0400, Peter R.
> wrote:

>Dennis wrote:
>
>> I would like to get others ideas in regards to if I should do a lease-back
>> at my local FBO, or take on 4 to 9 other partners.. I will be going to the
>> Rochester fly in next month (http://www.rochesterwings.com) and hope to
>> solidify a deal with Cirrus..
>
>Dennis, no comment on the Cirrus, but I want to mention that I am
>planning on attending the Rochester Wings event, too (barring weather,
>maintenance, or health issues). See you there.

My $.02: First time: find an existing club/partnership. Rarely does
single ownership work -- the plane doesn't fly enough. Easier to find
an existing arrangement to buy into than to create one. You probably
won't get the exact kind of plane you think you want, but the
experience will be educational.

Don

Dude

April 25th 04, 06:15 AM

If you want to do a leaseback, go with a Diamond. It is the only modern
design that can come close to covering costs. The insurance on the higher
performance planes is outlandish. Also, some 141 schools are so hot to get
the G1000's they will give you a favorable deal.

On the other hand, if you have to have something incredibly fast, go with
the Lancair. It has a much better wing design, and will no doubt prove to
be a much safer plane than Cirrus. I doubt a leaseback will work with this,
so you will need partners.

Partnerships are like marriages - choose carefully, have a prenup.

Latest news on Cirrus is the problems with the Continental Engines - a COPA
member wrote me that they are seeing engines need rebuilds or major work at
only 700 hours. Something to do with the Cirrus engine controls not
allowing the pilot to manage the engine well.

"Dennis" > wrote in message
...
> I'm thinking of purchasing a Cirrus SR22, I seen it at Sun'n Fun (although
I
> have seen it before) and now I can not stop thinking about it.
>
> I certainly can not afford to purchase one outright, but have a few people
> at my local FBO that would be interested in partnering..
>
> I would like to get others ideas in regards to if I should do a lease-back
> at my local FBO, or take on 4 to 9 other partners.. I will be going to
the
> Rochester fly in next month (http://www.rochesterwings.com) and hope to
> solidify a deal with Cirrus..
>
> Dennis
> N3868J
> MyAirplane.com
>
>

Jeff

April 25th 04, 08:54 AM

Dennis
the SR22 is fast compared to other planes with smaller engines, but compare it
to a plane with the same 310 HP engine, I dont think you will see much speed
difference.

what other planes out there have a 310 HP engine?

Dennis wrote:

> Holy crap! I guess I should have done some more research first... :(
>
> I really, really, really like the performance spec's and looks of the
> Currus.. My wife read your comment and now she's put off on the idea...
> Gonna have to find something else now before she but the breaks on a new
> plane purchase..
>
> Dennis
> N3868J
> MyAirplane.com
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I personally would not buy one of these airplanes until:
> >
> > 1) The airframe life limit of 4,030 hours is rescinded or at least
> tripled;
> > and
> >
> > 2) They find out why these planes are falling out of the sky with such
> > regularity and do something about it. If this behavior keeps up, the FAA
> is
> > likely to ground the entire fleet; and
> >
> > 3) Something is done about the atrocious quality control problems that
> > Cirrus has been having.
> >
> >

Thomas Borchert

April 25th 04, 09:29 AM

C,

> They find out why these planes are falling out of the sky with such
> regularity
>

Well, I sure hope I never again see you complain here about
sensationalistic reporting on aviation accidents. Jeeze!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 25th 04, 09:29 AM

Dennis,

this is usenet. What did you expect? Do you believe all you read here,
jts like that?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dennis

April 25th 04, 01:09 PM

I have been reading this group for years, and when CJ Campbell speaks, I
listen..

I had researched the financials, even have enough people interested in
partnering, I already have a hanger and have 200+ Bonanza hours. The simple
fact of 4030 hours life on the airframe is a deal breaker. I'm not much
worried about the 5+ accidents in the last 12 months. I've read many of the
NTSB reports and it seems to me pilots ARE getting into situations they
should have not been in (although the one where they guy's aliron was
falling off made me read again). Having the BRS would make one feel a bit
more at ease taking risks, but I am not a risk taker, nor would I want to
find myself in a position to deploy the chute..

I also took a serious look at the Lancair 350, but after learning of it's
price got my out of the seat..

Dennis
N3868J
MyAirplane.com

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dennis,
>
> this is usenet. What did you expect? Do you believe all you read here,
> jts like that?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Dennis

April 25th 04, 01:12 PM

Great! You'll have to look me up while there! I'll be the one with
"MyAirplane.com" on his shirt.. (well, one of them anyway). We may get a
booth, its up in the air right now (and only 2 weeks untillt he show).

Will you be staying over the 2 days? Wondering what camping would be like
on that field... or if its even allowed.

Dennis
N3868J
MyAirplane.com

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Dennis wrote:
>
> > I would like to get others ideas in regards to if I should do a
lease-back
> > at my local FBO, or take on 4 to 9 other partners.. I will be going to
the
> > Rochester fly in next month (http://www.rochesterwings.com) and hope to
> > solidify a deal with Cirrus..
>
> Dennis, no comment on the Cirrus, but I want to mention that I am
> planning on attending the Rochester Wings event, too (barring weather,
> maintenance, or health issues). See you there.
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>

Dennis

April 25th 04, 01:15 PM

You hit the nail on that one.. I bought a 1981 Beechcraft 77 Skipper just
over 2 years ago and hardly get to fly it. Put 63 hours on it last year and
20 of those were friends using it.

Its inexpensive to own a Skipper, but I can see your point clearly..
Hanger, insurance, maintenence, etc.. Its a bit much when you don't fly it
enough.

Dennis
N3868J
MyAirplane.com

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:34:34 -0400, Peter R.
> > wrote:
>
> >Dennis wrote:
> >
> >> I would like to get others ideas in regards to if I should do a
lease-back
> >> at my local FBO, or take on 4 to 9 other partners.. I will be going
to the
> >> Rochester fly in next month (http://www.rochesterwings.com) and hope to
> >> solidify a deal with Cirrus..
> >
> >Dennis, no comment on the Cirrus, but I want to mention that I am
> >planning on attending the Rochester Wings event, too (barring weather,
> >maintenance, or health issues). See you there.
>
> My $.02: First time: find an existing club/partnership. Rarely does
> single ownership work -- the plane doesn't fly enough. Easier to find
> an existing arrangement to buy into than to create one. You probably
> won't get the exact kind of plane you think you want, but the
> experience will be educational.
>
> Don

Stu Gotts

April 25th 04, 02:26 PM

Dennis;
If you have that many hours in a Bonanza, you'll never be satisfied
with anything else.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:09:05 GMT, "Dennis" > wrote:

>I have been reading this group for years, and when CJ Campbell speaks, I
>listen..
>
>I had researched the financials, even have enough people interested in
>partnering, I already have a hanger and have 200+ Bonanza hours. The simple
>fact of 4030 hours life on the airframe is a deal breaker. I'm not much
>worried about the 5+ accidents in the last 12 months. I've read many of the
>NTSB reports and it seems to me pilots ARE getting into situations they
>should have not been in (although the one where they guy's aliron was
>falling off made me read again). Having the BRS would make one feel a bit
>more at ease taking risks, but I am not a risk taker, nor would I want to
>find myself in a position to deploy the chute..
>
>I also took a serious look at the Lancair 350, but after learning of it's
>price got my out of the seat..
>
>Dennis
>N3868J
>MyAirplane.com
>
>
>"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>> Dennis,
>>
>> this is usenet. What did you expect? Do you believe all you read here,
>> jts like that?
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>
>

C J Campbell

April 25th 04, 03:47 PM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> C,
>
> > They find out why these planes are falling out of the sky with such
> > regularity
> >
>
> Well, I sure hope I never again see you complain here about
> sensationalistic reporting on aviation accidents. Jeeze!

The fact is that the Cirrus currently owns one of the worst accident and
fatality rates of any small airplane.

Cirrus also now has a history of quality control problems, with some
aircraft being returned or sold for a pittance as lemons.

Doug Vetter

April 25th 04, 03:53 PM

Dennis wrote:
> Holy crap! I guess I should have done some more research first... :(
>
> I really, really, really like the performance spec's and looks of the
> Currus.. My wife read your comment and now she's put off on the idea...
> Gonna have to find something else now before she but the breaks on a new
> plane purchase..
>
> Dennis
> N3868J
> MyAirplane.com

Hi Dennis,

I'll agree with the previous poster that while the Cirrus is a nice
airplane, I also would suggest that you not buy the airplane until they
extend the life limit. They'll undoubtedly tell you that they have
"plans" to extend the limit "somewhat", but the proof is in the paper.
Amortized over a mere 4000 hours, I'd venture a guess that an SR22 costs
more per hour to run than a capable twin (the Cessna 400 series
presently notwithstanding).

The SR20's limit of 12000 hours is still too limiting, IMHO, but I can
appreciate the FAA's conservatism regarding any new (indeed
revolutionary) design. I would want that limit raised after a
sufficient field history is established and a half-dozen airplanes are
torn apart when they reach the life limit to determine if the
engineering models indeed reflect reality.

However, I must disagree with the comment about the airplanes "falling
out of the sky" -- we just touched on this in Jay's thread. This has
NOTHING to do with the airplane. It has EVERYTHING to do with pilots
with more money than skill flying them. Fundamentally, I believe the
Cirrus is a safe airplane. I think we all agree it flies differently
than a Cessna, but in the right hands, that's not a bad thing.

Personally, if I had $300K (or partners) I'd buy a used Seneca or Baron.
It never pays to buy new. A twin will be just as fast, have full
deice, and an extra engine for sanity in IMC, night, and overwater
operations. The statistics will never bear out how much safer twins
are, because when everyone arrives safely following an engine out, there
is no report, and the airplane will fly another day. While that extra
engine costs $$$, it gives you the OPTION of finishing the flight in a
"routine" fashion and helps keep insurance costs down (no claims =
better prices for everyone). Next time you want to take your wife in
challenging conditions, ask her how many engines she'd want...

BTW, awesome job on the website. Just do me (and every other
alternative-OS guy) a favor...dump the IE requirement. By requiring IE,
you're limiting access to your site to a single operating system. If
you have to require anything (and for a truly standards-compliant site,
you shouldn't), require Mozilla!

Safe flying,

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------

C J Campbell

April 25th 04, 04:53 PM

"Doug Vetter" > wrote in message
et...
>
> The SR20's limit of 12000 hours is still too limiting, IMHO, but I can
> appreciate the FAA's conservatism regarding any new (indeed
> revolutionary) design.

I was told by a Diamond rep that the Diamond aircraft do not have airframe
life limits. I would consider them to be just as revolutionary as the
Cirrus. However, I have not looked up the Diamond's type certificates to
verify the rep's claims.

>
> However, I must disagree with the comment about the airplanes "falling
> out of the sky" -- we just touched on this in Jay's thread. This has
> NOTHING to do with the airplane. It has EVERYTHING to do with pilots
> with more money than skill flying them.

Actually, it has EVERYTHING (sic) to do with the airplane, whether it is
some design flaw that causes them to disintegrate or whether it is a design
flaw that makes them too difficult to fly for the pilots that are buying
them.

In any event, I think the FAA will eventually order Cirrus to get to the
bottom of it, no matter what the cause. The FAA nearly grounded Cirrus with
the first rash of accidents. I doubt that their patience with Cirrus is
unlimited.

The pilot in Florida had 600 hours in type, was instrument rated, and was a
founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That does not fit the description
of "more money than skill."

The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin or even an incipient spin. Pilots are
supposed to deploy the chute if the Cirrus enters a spin. Fine, if you are
900' AGL or more. Probably more, if the chute takes longer to deploy when
the airplane is in a spin. So a departure stall or approach stall in this
airplane is going to be far more dangerous than in other aircraft.

And let us be clear here: stalls were a factor in a large percentage of the
Cirrus accidents so far.

Given that the most common GA accident is low level maneuvering: the slick
design of the Cirrus, the inadequate flaps, the poor stall handling
abilities, pilot unfamiliarity with the new equipment (which also keeps
pilots' eyes inside the cockpit), poor maintenance and quality control, and
the inability of the parachute to deploy at low altitude all seem to me to
add up to a lot of trouble.

Thomas Borchert

April 25th 04, 05:18 PM

Dennis,

> The simple
> fact of 4030 hours life on the airframe is a deal breaker.
>

I wouldn't worry about that. It's bound to change. Talk to Cirrus about
it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 25th 04, 05:29 PM

Stu,

> If you have that many hours in a Bonanza, you'll never be satisfied
> with anything else.
>

Well, the Cirrus has the chance to do that, from my perspective.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 25th 04, 05:29 PM

C,

> The FAA nearly grounded Cirrus with
> the first rash of accidents.

Any source to prove that statement? I doubt it is true.

>
> The pilot in Florida had 600 hours in type, was instrument rated, and was a
> founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That does not fit the description
> of "more money than skill."

So?

>
> The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin or even an incipient spin.
>

Oh? So you did the certification flights that the company didn't do? Or how
do you know that?

Sorry, but while the Cirrus might well prove to be less safe than other
planes, I just can't stand this cheap propaganda. The Cirrus CAN recover from
a spin - it's a certification requirement! It is fulfilled by pulling the
chute. No other methods of recovery were officially tested. The FAA was
satisfied.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 25th 04, 05:29 PM

C,

> The fact is that the Cirrus currently owns one of the worst accident and
> fatality rates of any small airplane.
>

That still doesn't make them "fall out of the sky". And it's not even
true, depending on how you look at it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Stu Gotts

April 25th 04, 06:18 PM

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:29:40 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Stu,
>
>> If you have that many hours in a Bonanza, you'll never be satisfied
>> with anything else.
>>
>
>Well, the Cirrus has the chance to do that, from my perspective.

Ever a Bonanza owner?

Dude

April 25th 04, 06:30 PM

Cirrus could improve their situation vastly by adding speed breaks.

This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach. It would also reduce
the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control system.

I believe I have seen Cirrus claim the plane can be revovered from a spin
normally, but experience to date has so far shown that may not be that easy.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Doug Vetter" > wrote in message
> et...
> >
> > The SR20's limit of 12000 hours is still too limiting, IMHO, but I can
> > appreciate the FAA's conservatism regarding any new (indeed
> > revolutionary) design.
>
> I was told by a Diamond rep that the Diamond aircraft do not have airframe
> life limits. I would consider them to be just as revolutionary as the
> Cirrus. However, I have not looked up the Diamond's type certificates to
> verify the rep's claims.
>
> >
> > However, I must disagree with the comment about the airplanes "falling
> > out of the sky" -- we just touched on this in Jay's thread. This has
> > NOTHING to do with the airplane. It has EVERYTHING to do with pilots
> > with more money than skill flying them.
>
> Actually, it has EVERYTHING (sic) to do with the airplane, whether it is
> some design flaw that causes them to disintegrate or whether it is a
design
> flaw that makes them too difficult to fly for the pilots that are buying
> them.
>
> In any event, I think the FAA will eventually order Cirrus to get to the
> bottom of it, no matter what the cause. The FAA nearly grounded Cirrus
with
> the first rash of accidents. I doubt that their patience with Cirrus is
> unlimited.
>
> The pilot in Florida had 600 hours in type, was instrument rated, and was
a
> founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That does not fit the
description
> of "more money than skill."
>
> The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin or even an incipient spin. Pilots
are
> supposed to deploy the chute if the Cirrus enters a spin. Fine, if you are
> 900' AGL or more. Probably more, if the chute takes longer to deploy when
> the airplane is in a spin. So a departure stall or approach stall in this
> airplane is going to be far more dangerous than in other aircraft.
>
> And let us be clear here: stalls were a factor in a large percentage of
the
> Cirrus accidents so far.
>
> Given that the most common GA accident is low level maneuvering: the slick
> design of the Cirrus, the inadequate flaps, the poor stall handling
> abilities, pilot unfamiliarity with the new equipment (which also keeps
> pilots' eyes inside the cockpit), poor maintenance and quality control,
and
> the inability of the parachute to deploy at low altitude all seem to me to
> add up to a lot of trouble.
>
>

Dude

April 25th 04, 06:48 PM

How do you look at it?

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> C,
>
> > The fact is that the Cirrus currently owns one of the worst accident and
> > fatality rates of any small airplane.
> >
>
> That still doesn't make them "fall out of the sky". And it's not even
> true, depending on how you look at it.
>
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Fred Wolf

April 25th 04, 07:12 PM

While there have been some accidents due to equipment malfunction, I think
most have been ones where severe lapses in Judgement have occured

F Wolf
"Dennis" > wrote in message
...
> I'm thinking of purchasing a Cirrus SR22, I seen it at Sun'n Fun (although
I
> have seen it before) and now I can not stop thinking about it.
>
> I certainly can not afford to purchase one outright, but have a few people
> at my local FBO that would be interested in partnering..
>
> I would like to get others ideas in regards to if I should do a lease-back
> at my local FBO, or take on 4 to 9 other partners.. I will be going to
the
> Rochester fly in next month (http://www.rochesterwings.com) and hope to
> solidify a deal with Cirrus..
>
> Dennis
> N3868J
> MyAirplane.com
>
>

Dave Stadt

April 25th 04, 07:33 PM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> C,
>
> > The fact is that the Cirrus currently owns one of the worst accident and
> > fatality rates of any small airplane.
> >
>
> That still doesn't make them "fall out of the sky". And it's not even
> true, depending on how you look at it.
>
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I think "fall out of the sky" is a rather apt description. After all, if
one pulls the chute they do "fall out of the sky."

Newps

April 25th 04, 07:49 PM

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Cirrus could improve their situation vastly by adding speed breaks.
>
> This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach. It would also reduce
> the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control
system.

How would speed brakes help? Speed brakes do not reduce the speed at which
a wing stalls.

Thomas Borchert

April 25th 04, 08:15 PM

Stu,

> Ever a Bonanza owner?
>

No, keeps me neutral <g>.

I have about 100 hours in Bo's. And a half hour in an SR20. All it took
to convince me. The SR20 flies better - to me.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 25th 04, 08:15 PM

Dude,

> This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach.

Oh? So how many have stalled on approach again? Right, none.

> It would also reduce
> the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control system.
>

So you can prove damage through shock cooling? Wow! I know no one else who
can. And where is the connection to the "engine control system"?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Michael 182

April 25th 04, 08:29 PM

Before I get flamed, remember this is a seies of questions, not a
statement...

In my 182 I slow the plane, assuming gear is already down, by reducing power
and pitching up. On a laminar flow wing (does the Cirrus have a laminar flow
wing?) I understand that the wing stall happens pretty abruptly - either you
are flying or your not. If that is the case, it seems that speed brakes
would aid in getting the speed under control without as much danger of being
close to the stall speed and pitching up to control airspeed.

All right, I'm done. Have at it...

Michael

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Cirrus could improve their situation vastly by adding speed breaks.
> >
> > This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach. It would also
reduce
> > the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control
> system.
>
>
> How would speed brakes help? Speed brakes do not reduce the speed at
which
> a wing stalls.
>
>

Dennis

April 25th 04, 08:35 PM

I'm still going to take a look at the Rochester fly-in, bit the salesman
might throw me out after I hit him with all these questions..

I thought about getting a Bonanza, but without partners, I couldn't afford
it.. My old boss had a 33 and then a 35, I use to be able to fly it at will
(work and pleasure).

Dennis
N3868J
MyAirplane.com

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dennis,
>
> > The simple
> > fact of 4030 hours life on the airframe is a deal breaker.
> >
>
> I wouldn't worry about that. It's bound to change. Talk to Cirrus about
> it.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Peter Duniho

April 25th 04, 08:47 PM

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:MkUic.32804$w96.2278982@attbi_s54...
> [...] If that is the case, it seems that speed brakes
> would aid in getting the speed under control without as much danger of
being
> close to the stall speed and pitching up to control airspeed.

I think I kind of get what you're trying to say about the pitch
angle/control, even if it seems like a bit of a red herring to me.

But it seems a little odd to me to talk about "getting the speed under
control" (i.e. slowing down) and claiming that one method will be "without
as much danger of being close to the stall speed" as some other method.

Assuming you use either method to slow an equal amount, from the same
initial airspeed, the resulting airspeed will be the same, and will be just
as "close to the stall speed", assuming neither method changes the stall
speed (which is the case when comparing speed brakes versus pitching up).

Pete

Michael 182

April 25th 04, 08:55 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> news:MkUic.32804$w96.2278982@attbi_s54...
> > [...] If that is the case, it seems that speed brakes
> > would aid in getting the speed under control without as much danger of
> being
> > close to the stall speed and pitching up to control airspeed.
>
> I think I kind of get what you're trying to say about the pitch
> angle/control, even if it seems like a bit of a red herring to me.
>
> But it seems a little odd to me to talk about "getting the speed under
> control" (i.e. slowing down) and claiming that one method will be "without
> as much danger of being close to the stall speed" as some other method.
>

Hmmm - I agree - I meant that the use of speed brakes would allow slowing
without using as much pitch - does that make sense?

Michael

Tom Sixkiller

April 25th 04, 09:11 PM

"Dennis" > wrote in message
...
> I'm still going to take a look at the Rochester fly-in, bit the salesman
> might throw me out after I hit him with all these questions..
>
> I thought about getting a Bonanza, but without partners, I couldn't afford
> it.. My old boss had a 33 and then a 35, I use to be able to fly it at
will
> (work and pleasure).
>

Dennis,

Why not a Bo'? You said in another post you had 200+ hours in that.

Tom Sixkiller

April 25th 04, 09:20 PM

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Cirrus could improve their situation vastly by adding speed breaks.
>
> This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach. It would also reduce
> the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control
system.
>

Popping the speed brakes at approach speeds would aggravate the stall
condition, not alleviate it.

Mike Murdock

April 25th 04, 09:40 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
..
..
> The fact is that the Cirrus currently owns one of the worst accident and
> fatality rates of any small airplane.

This is an outrageous statement! Can you post any facts showing the
accident and fatality rates of Cirrus airplanes vs. comparable aircraft? If
you examine the real numbers you will find that your statement is patently
false.

No less an authority than Richard Collins of "Flying" magazine disagrees
with you. In the May, 2004 issue, he said that the safety record of Cirrus
airplanes has been "about the same" as those of Cessna 182s manufactured
between 2000 and 2003. He also said, "That's good, really good, because the
182 has always had the best safety record of any piston airplane used for
purposeful personal transportation."

Mr. Collins' article was a followup to his earlier article that was
questioning the safety of Cirrus aircraft.

-Mike

Dude

April 25th 04, 10:26 PM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dude,
>
> > This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach.
>
> Oh? So how many have stalled on approach again? Right, none.

Yet.

Don't get so frigging defensive. My point is that the Cirrus can be hard to
slow to approach speed. It takes more care than many other planes because
it is slick, and you cannot control the pitch of the prop to add drag. If
you had speed breaks you would allow the pilot more options to control
descent given that right now the system that governs the RPM/MP has limited
ability to slow the plane without cutting the throttle.

Bottom line is that if a person has speed breaks, he is less likely to fly
slow because he can shed speed whenever needed.

>
> > It would also reduce
> > the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control
system.
> >
>
> So you can prove damage through shock cooling? Wow! I know no one else who
> can. And where is the connection to the "engine control system"?
>

Presently, according to some COPA members, there are many people having
excessive engine wear and needing lots of cylinder work early. One
suspected reason is shock cooling due to pilots cutting throttle to get the
plane down without gaining too much speed. The cirrus design simply adds
more penalty to poor vertical planning than most planes, and so the engine
is often asked to pay the price.

Another theory is that the engines are constanlty being run at set rpm's
that may not be the best rpm's or the smoothest. The pilot cannot control
it.

Bottom line, the phony Fadec system isn't really all that good.

> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Dude

April 25th 04, 10:39 PM

According to Aviation Safety, the SR20 is nearly 4 times more dangerous than
the 182s/182t

I would really like someone to tell me how you can look at these stats and
see something less than 4 fatalities every 100,000 hours?

The Cirrus fleet has enough hours now that the stats actually mean
something. They have not found and corrected any major flaw except to fix
the parachute. If I am going to buy a plane with a parachute, I certainly
don't want it to be because the plane would be otherwise unsafe.

The best way for us to see if chutes add safety would be for Cessna to add
it as an option on the 182. Unless someone else other than Cirrus puts them
on a plane, I am afraid the chute may get a bad name.

Mr. Collins may be a well respected expert, but if he disagrees with the
basic numbers, he is in error.

"Mike Murdock" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ..
> .
> > The fact is that the Cirrus currently owns one of the worst accident and
> > fatality rates of any small airplane.
>
> This is an outrageous statement! Can you post any facts showing the
> accident and fatality rates of Cirrus airplanes vs. comparable aircraft?
If
> you examine the real numbers you will find that your statement is patently
> false.
>
> No less an authority than Richard Collins of "Flying" magazine disagrees
> with you. In the May, 2004 issue, he said that the safety record of
Cirrus
> airplanes has been "about the same" as those of Cessna 182s manufactured
> between 2000 and 2003. He also said, "That's good, really good, because
the
> 182 has always had the best safety record of any piston airplane used for
> purposeful personal transportation."
>
> Mr. Collins' article was a followup to his earlier article that was
> questioning the safety of Cirrus aircraft.
>
> -Mike
>
>

EDR

April 25th 04, 10:42 PM

In article >, Mike Murdock
> wrote:

> No less an authority than Richard Collins of "Flying" magazine disagrees
> with you. In the May, 2004 issue, he said that the safety record of Cirrus
> airplanes has been "about the same" as those of Cessna 182s manufactured
> between 2000 and 2003. He also said, "That's good, really good, because the
> 182 has always had the best safety record of any piston airplane used for
> purposeful personal transportation."
> Mr. Collins' article was a followup to his earlier article that was
> questioning the safety of Cirrus aircraft.

You are forgetting that Collin's article was written in January (three
month lead time for publishing), prior to the current rash of
accidents.

Dude

April 25th 04, 10:44 PM

Correct, as with almost every aircraft in the fleet. Poor judgement is well
known to be a much higher cause of death than malfunction.

If you take out the poor judgement events from Cirrus, then you have to do
the same for the others before comparing the rates.

You can do this with the Cirrus accidents because they still have a small
enough fleet. The ratio is not that much different than I would expect it
to be, its the frequency that is compelling.

Really, what percent of Cessna accidents are not poor judgement?

"Fred Wolf" > wrote in message
...
> While there have been some accidents due to equipment malfunction, I think
> most have been ones where severe lapses in Judgement have occured
>
> F Wolf
> "Dennis" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm thinking of purchasing a Cirrus SR22, I seen it at Sun'n Fun
(although
> I
> > have seen it before) and now I can not stop thinking about it.
> >
> > I certainly can not afford to purchase one outright, but have a few
people
> > at my local FBO that would be interested in partnering..
> >
> > I would like to get others ideas in regards to if I should do a
lease-back
> > at my local FBO, or take on 4 to 9 other partners.. I will be going to
> the
> > Rochester fly in next month (http://www.rochesterwings.com) and hope to
> > solidify a deal with Cirrus..
> >
> > Dennis
> > N3868J
> > MyAirplane.com
> >
> >
>
>

Doug Vetter

April 25th 04, 11:09 PM

C J Campbell wrote:
> The pilot in Florida had 600 hours in type, was instrument rated, and was a
> founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That does not fit the description
> of "more money than skill."

I cannot comment on that specific accident, because I don't remember
what happened. Perhaps he was atypical of the "problem" Cirrus pilot.
Perhaps he was the perfect example...I don't know.

What I do know is that the vast majority of accidents in any aircraft
type -- not just Cirrus -- are due to pilot error, and an awful lot of
the well-publicized Cirrus accidents seem to fit into the classic
category of "more money than skill". Call it the "Doctor Killer" syndrome.

> The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin or even an incipient spin. Pilots are
> supposed to deploy the chute if the Cirrus enters a spin. Fine, if you are
> 900' AGL or more. Probably more, if the chute takes longer to deploy when
> the airplane is in a spin. So a departure stall or approach stall in this
> airplane is going to be far more dangerous than in other aircraft.
<snip>

Where did you hear that the Cirrus is incapable of recovering from a
spin? I thought it was a condition of Part 23 certification that it
recover from a spin, but that it not be "approved" for intentional spins
if the manufacturer did not do the full spin test program. I'm no
certification expert, however, so I could certainly be wrong.

For what it's worth, the Seminole was reportedly never spin tested,
though its twin (the Beech Dutchess) was. Neither are approved for
spins, but at least they will recover from one.

> Given that the most common GA accident is low level maneuvering: the slick
> design of the Cirrus, the inadequate flaps, the poor stall handling
> abilities, pilot unfamiliarity with the new equipment (which also keeps
> pilots' eyes inside the cockpit), poor maintenance and quality control, and
> the inability of the parachute to deploy at low altitude all seem to me to
> add up to a lot of trouble.

Here we find some common ground. Cirrus does have some QC issues.
Diamond does too, for that matter. I'm not sure why maintenance is
suffering (God knows the local Cirrus service center is always packed,
so there is no apparent lack of attention these airplanes receive in the
shop), but mechanical problems remain the cause of a very small
percentage of the total number of accidents.

As for the parachute, I'll go back to my original point -- if I lose an
engine in a twin, I have a chance to bring the aircraft and passengers
home to fly another day. In effect, the other engine is my parachute.
The difference, of course, is that if I pull the chute in a Cirrus, it's
game over for the airplane. IMHO, it shouldn't be so easy to throw away
$300K.

And, on that note, I'll conclude by saying if I were a prospective
Cirrus buyer like Dennis, I'd be very concerned about the inevitable
increase in insurance cost for these airplanes. Pretty soon, having a
partner in a Cirrus won't just be a "nice-to-have" when it comes time to
pay the bills. It will be a requirement.

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------

Mike Murdock

April 25th 04, 11:32 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> ....
>
> And let us be clear here: stalls were a factor in a large percentage of
the
> Cirrus accidents so far.

I have information on 35 Cirrus accidents and incidents. With the most
liberal interpretation, stalls could have been involved in at most 5 of
those. Do you consider 14% to be a "large percentage"? If so, you must be
an accountant for the federal government.

-Mike

Dave Stadt

April 26th 04, 12:22 AM

"Mike Murdock" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ..
> .
> > The fact is that the Cirrus currently owns one of the worst accident and
> > fatality rates of any small airplane.
>
> This is an outrageous statement! Can you post any facts showing the
> accident and fatality rates of Cirrus airplanes vs. comparable aircraft?
If
> you examine the real numbers you will find that your statement is patently
> false.
>
> No less an authority than Richard Collins

Oh, my head aches after reading that statement.

Mike Beede

April 26th 04, 12:40 AM

In article >, Dude > wrote:

> My point is that the Cirrus can be hard to
> slow to approach speed. It takes more care than many other planes because
> it is slick, and you cannot control the pitch of the prop to add drag. If
> you had speed breaks you would allow the pilot more options to control
> descent given that right now the system that governs the RPM/MP has limited
> ability to slow the plane without cutting the throttle.
>
> Bottom line is that if a person has speed breaks, he is less likely to fly
> slow because he can shed speed whenever needed.

I've flown a Cirrus and while it does land fast compared to say a 182, it
didn't seem to be particularly hard to slow down compared to say a 182RG
with the gear up. They do have flaps, even if they don't have speed brakes,
and you can slip them if you need even more drag.

The thing I don't like about them is they land *fast* compared to something
of similar performance--like a 182RG. I like to at least pretend that if I can
find a nice big parking lot I can put a 182 into it--and I think I could, though
we'd probably hit something on the far end in a hopefully-survivable fashion.
I get the feeling I have to look for a long straight road in a Cirrus.

Mike Beede

atis118

April 26th 04, 12:45 AM

Dennis, nothing to do with the Cirrus, but I just checked out you
website, already bookmarked, very cool!

Greg King
Dakota N2957F
Van Nuys, CA

"Dennis" > wrote in message >...
> I'm thinking of purchasing a Cirrus SR22, I seen it at Sun'n Fun (although I
> have seen it before) and now I can not stop thinking about it.
>
> I certainly can not afford to purchase one outright, but have a few people
> at my local FBO that would be interested in partnering..
>
> I would like to get others ideas in regards to if I should do a lease-back
> at my local FBO, or take on 4 to 9 other partners.. I will be going to the
> Rochester fly in next month (http://www.rochesterwings.com) and hope to
> solidify a deal with Cirrus..
>
> Dennis
> N3868J
> MyAirplane.com

C J Campbell

April 26th 04, 12:47 AM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oh? So you did the certification flights that the company didn't do? Or
how
> do you know that?
>
> Sorry, but while the Cirrus might well prove to be less safe than other
> planes, I just can't stand this cheap propaganda. The Cirrus CAN recover
from
> a spin - it's a certification requirement! It is fulfilled by pulling the
> chute. No other methods of recovery were officially tested. The FAA was
> satisfied.

Well, we realize that you think this plane was built by the flawless gods,
but what happens when the Cirrus gets into an incipient spin when it is too
low to deploy the parachute? Most other aircraft can recover from such a
condition with room to spare. The Cirrus cannot.

Mike Beede

April 26th 04, 12:50 AM

In article >, Doug Vetter > wrote:

> Where did you hear that the Cirrus is incapable of recovering from a
> spin? I thought it was a condition of Part 23 certification that it
> recover from a spin, but that it not be "approved" for intentional spins
> if the manufacturer did not do the full spin test program. I'm no
> certification expert, however, so I could certainly be wrong.

Per Cirrus the *only* approved recovery method for a spin
is to deploy the BRS. Several sources I found on the web state
that the chute was used to meet the part 23 requirement. I assume
they demonstrated a spin deployment in order to satisfy the
certification requirement.

There was at least one fatal accident that involved a spin. For
some reason, the pilot didn't deploy the chute. I suppose, like
most such situations, it seemed like a good idea at the time.
(That's not a joke, by the way--I assume in a life-threatening
situation that people do what seems sensible. That's why
we train for emergencies...).

Mike Beede

C J Campbell

April 26th 04, 12:51 AM

"Doug Vetter" > wrote in message
et...

>
> Where did you hear that the Cirrus is incapable of recovering from a
> spin? I thought it was a condition of Part 23 certification that it
> recover from a spin

It is a requirement. Cirrus could only meet it by saying that the way you
recover from a spin is to deploy the parachute. The airplane in testing
never successfully recovered from even an incipient spin without deploying
the chute.

Stu Gotts

April 26th 04, 12:54 AM

I'm not sure speed brakes would help. They would probably hurt, in
fact!

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 17:30:07 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:

>Cirrus could improve their situation vastly by adding speed breaks.
>
>This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach. It would also reduce
>the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control system.
>
>I believe I have seen Cirrus claim the plane can be revovered from a spin
>normally, but experience to date has so far shown that may not be that easy.
>
>
>
>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Doug Vetter" > wrote in message
>> et...
>> >
>> > The SR20's limit of 12000 hours is still too limiting, IMHO, but I can
>> > appreciate the FAA's conservatism regarding any new (indeed
>> > revolutionary) design.
>>
>> I was told by a Diamond rep that the Diamond aircraft do not have airframe
>> life limits. I would consider them to be just as revolutionary as the
>> Cirrus. However, I have not looked up the Diamond's type certificates to
>> verify the rep's claims.
>>
>> >
>> > However, I must disagree with the comment about the airplanes "falling
>> > out of the sky" -- we just touched on this in Jay's thread. This has
>> > NOTHING to do with the airplane. It has EVERYTHING to do with pilots
>> > with more money than skill flying them.
>>
>> Actually, it has EVERYTHING (sic) to do with the airplane, whether it is
>> some design flaw that causes them to disintegrate or whether it is a
>design
>> flaw that makes them too difficult to fly for the pilots that are buying
>> them.
>>
>> In any event, I think the FAA will eventually order Cirrus to get to the
>> bottom of it, no matter what the cause. The FAA nearly grounded Cirrus
>with
>> the first rash of accidents. I doubt that their patience with Cirrus is
>> unlimited.
>>
>> The pilot in Florida had 600 hours in type, was instrument rated, and was
>a
>> founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That does not fit the
>description
>> of "more money than skill."
>>
>> The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin or even an incipient spin. Pilots
>are
>> supposed to deploy the chute if the Cirrus enters a spin. Fine, if you are
>> 900' AGL or more. Probably more, if the chute takes longer to deploy when
>> the airplane is in a spin. So a departure stall or approach stall in this
>> airplane is going to be far more dangerous than in other aircraft.
>>
>> And let us be clear here: stalls were a factor in a large percentage of
>the
>> Cirrus accidents so far.
>>
>> Given that the most common GA accident is low level maneuvering: the slick
>> design of the Cirrus, the inadequate flaps, the poor stall handling
>> abilities, pilot unfamiliarity with the new equipment (which also keeps
>> pilots' eyes inside the cockpit), poor maintenance and quality control,
>and
>> the inability of the parachute to deploy at low altitude all seem to me to
>> add up to a lot of trouble.
>>
>>
>

C J Campbell

April 26th 04, 01:20 AM

"Mike Murdock" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ....
> >
> > And let us be clear here: stalls were a factor in a large percentage of
> the
> > Cirrus accidents so far.
>
> I have information on 35 Cirrus accidents and incidents.

The NTSB has information on only 18. Leaving out the latest three, two of
which may have involved stalls:

3/23/99 Cirrus stalls when aileron malfunctions
4/10/01 CFIT
6/16/01 Bounced landing. The report notices that the Cirrus has had eight of
these previously.
8/19/01 Bad fuel management.
9/19/01 Improper servicing; low oil.
3/16/02 Instrument failure, pilot disorientation
4/24/02 Stall/spin
5/28/02 CFIT
10/3/02 Improper maintenance, control surface failure
10/15/02 Deer strike
11/3/02 CFIT
1/18/03 Graveyard spin
1/23/03 CFIT
7/12/03 low level maneuvering, stall
8/15/03 stall
10/12/03 CFIT
12/27/03 low level maneuvering, stall
1/22/04 improper maintenance, brake failure

It appears that stalls are an unreasonably large percentage of accidents,
especially for a plane that was billed as stall-proof. CFIT seems to be the
biggest problem in the Cirrus, which would seem to support the
"doctor-killer" theory. Maintenance is also a real problem area.

Although it does not show up directly in the NTSB database, it appears that
bounced landings resulting in prop and tail strikes are a problem, though
not a deadly one. I don't know how many of the bounced landings were caused
by stalls.

Vaughn

April 26th 04, 02:44 AM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> C,
>
> ...The Cirrus CAN recover from
> a spin - it's a certification requirement! It is fulfilled by pulling the
> chute. No other methods of recovery were officially tested. The FAA was
> satisfied.

Unbelieveable! Is that really true? ...and you really think that is good
enough?

Don't get me wrong, I think the chute is a great thing, in the case of
midair, loss of control, control failure etc. it provides a unique survival
option; but it should be no replacement for good flying qualities. Pulling the
chute not only terminates the flight, but guarantees damage to the airframe,
guarantees an off-field landing, guarantees unwanted publicity, and puts the
lives of the occupants and possibly even people on the ground in serious danger.
A capability for a normal spin recovery sounds like a much better idea.

Vaughn

EDR

April 26th 04, 02:57 AM

In article >, Dude
> wrote:

> The Cirrus fleet has enough hours now that the stats actually mean
> something. They have not found and corrected any major flaw except to fix
> the parachute. If I am going to buy a plane with a parachute, I certainly
> don't want it to be because the plane would be otherwise unsafe.

Let's be very clear on this, the BRS/CAPS is there because the FAA
requires it.
The FAA requires it because the airplane has not passed spin
certification.
The BRS/CAPS is the FAA's alternative to spin recovery certification.

EDR

April 26th 04, 02:58 AM

Jeff

April 26th 04, 04:23 AM

I would think vortex generators would help reduce the stall speed without
causing to much drag and reducing its speed.

Michael 182 wrote:

> Before I get flamed, remember this is a seies of questions, not a
> statement...
>
> In my 182 I slow the plane, assuming gear is already down, by reducing power
> and pitching up. On a laminar flow wing (does the Cirrus have a laminar flow
> wing?) I understand that the wing stall happens pretty abruptly - either you
> are flying or your not. If that is the case, it seems that speed brakes
> would aid in getting the speed under control without as much danger of being
> close to the stall speed and pitching up to control airspeed.
>
> All right, I'm done. Have at it...
>
> Michael
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dude" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Cirrus could improve their situation vastly by adding speed breaks.
> > >
> > > This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach. It would also
> reduce
> > > the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control
> > system.
> >
> >
> > How would speed brakes help? Speed brakes do not reduce the speed at
> which
> > a wing stalls.
> >
> >

Mike Murdock

April 26th 04, 04:51 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Murdock" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > ....
> > >
> > > And let us be clear here: stalls were a factor in a large percentage
of
> > the
> > > Cirrus accidents so far.
> >
> > I have information on 35 Cirrus accidents and incidents.
>
> The NTSB has information on only 18. Leaving out the latest three, two of
> which may have involved stalls:

>
> 3/23/99 Cirrus stalls when aileron malfunctions
This was a Cirrus test pilot in an experimental plane. He crashed
attempting to land with a jammed aileron. The NTSB report mentions a stall
only in that the pilot was doing stalls (not uncommon for a test pilot) 10
seconds before he reported an emergency.

1/8/00 lost power in cruise, forced landing in field, no injuries. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/nasdac/STAGE.AIDS_BRIEF_REPORT_PUB?EV_ID=20000108003439G&NARR_VAR=

10/15/00 While landing, right seat passenger hit the brakes. Plane departed
the runway and hit a sign. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/nasdac/STAGE.AIDS_BRIEF_REPORT_PUB?EV_ID=20001015016469G&NARR_VAR=

4/5/01 Bounced landing, left runway, sheared off nose wheel. Pilot time in
type was 35 hours. Note that bounced landings in these planes are generally
due to too-high approach speeds. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/nasdac/STAGE.AIDS_BRIEF_REPORT_PUB?EV_ID=20010405005719G&NARR_VAR=

> 4/10/01 CFIT
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010423X00798&key=1

> 6/16/01 Bounced landing. The report notices that the Cirrus has had eight
of
> these previously.
Pilot had just picked up her airplane and received factory training. One of
the reasons Cirrus fired their training contractor and ended up hiring the
Universityof North Dakota. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010620X01213&key=1

8/4/01 A pilot with 25 hours of Cirrus time hit a runway marker while
taxiing. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/nasdac/STAGE.AIDS_BRIEF_REPORT_PUB?EV_ID=20010804019669G&NARR_VAR=

> 8/19/01 Bad fuel management.
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010822X01754&key=1

> 9/19/01 Improper servicing; low oil.
The mechanic didn't safety wire the oil plug, and it was lost in flight.
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010921X01977&key=1

9/29/01 Hard landing during a training flight when an instructor (training
another instructor) pulled power during takeoff. An acquaintance of mine
purchased this plane from the insurance company after the accident and did
the repairs himself, including repairing the wing spar where the fence had
damaged it. I've flown this plane after the repairs and it flies very well.
See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/nasdac/STAGE.AIDS_BRIEF_REPORT_PUB?EV_ID=20010929029089G&NARR_VAR=

11/9/01 After a catastrophic engine failure, the pilot deadsticked the plane
in. No injuries. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/nasdac/STAGE.AIDS_BRIEF_REPORT_PUB?EV_ID=20011109037489G&NARR_VAR=

> 3/16/02 Instrument failure, pilot disorientation
This is the incident where they attempted to use the chute and it didn't
deploy. They landed in a field and hit a tree, no injuries. After this,
there was an AD for changing the chute deployment system. No online report
found.

4/23/02 Brake failed during taxi, hit parked plane. See
http://www.cirruspilots.org/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=members&Number=39792

> 4/24/02 Stall/spin
Apparently doing acrobatics despite placards prohibiting them. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020502X00613&key=1

5/11/02 Pilot lost control on landing, landing gear collapsed. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/nasdac/STAGE.AIDS_BRIEF_REPORT_PUB?EV_ID=20020511014599G&NARR_VAR=

> 5/28/02 CFIT
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020605X00811&key=1

See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/nasdac/STAGE.AIDS_BRIEF_REPORT_PUB?EV_ID=20020511014599G&NARR_VAR=

6/3/02 Wing tip struck parked fuel truck. See
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov:443/pls/nasdac/STAGE.AIDS_BRIEF_REPORT_PUB?EV_ID=20020603010509G&NARR_VAR=

> 10/3/02 Improper maintenance, control surface failure
Mechanic did not safety-wire aileron bolt. Pilot pulled chute, received
only minor injures. Plane was repaired and is flying again. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20021008X05290&key=1

> 10/15/02 Deer strike
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20021029X05397&key=1

> 11/3/02 CFIT
VFR into IMC. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20021108X05449&key=1

11/11/02 Broken camshaft, deadstick landing, no injuries. Report apparently
not available online.

12/28/02 Defective engine part (connecting rod bolt) caused inflight engine
failure and forced landing. No report available online.

> 1/18/03 Graveyard spin
The NTSB concluded differently. They estimated his true airspeed at impact
at 191 knots. Doesn't sound like a "graveyard" or any other type of spin to
me. See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030122X00087&key=1

> 1/23/03 CFIT
Collided with power lines during an instrument approach. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030206X00175&key=1

> 7/12/03 low level maneuvering, stall
It's fair enough to put this one in the stall category. Don't go from 100%
flaps to 0% flaps when you are low and slow. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030718x01151&key=1

7/12/03 nose wheel collapsed on landing. Little other information
available.

> 8/15/03 stall
The pilot was maneuvering to avoid a helicopter. Sounds like he stalled it.
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040105X00014&key=1

> 10/12/03 CFIT
This happened in Spain. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040105X00012&key=1

> 12/27/03 low level maneuvering, stall
Pilot was doing a simulated ("watch this") forced landing, hit power pole
and guy wire on climbout. I guess hitting the wire would cause the plane to
stall, but it hardly seems fair to put this one in that category. See
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040105X00007&key=1

1/1/04 Blown tire on landing. No injuries. No info available online.

> 1/22/04 improper maintenance, brake failure
See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040129X00128&key=1

4/8/04 Stall/spin over mountains. Parachute saved all onboard. No online
report.

4/10/04: On the first flight after maintenance, loss of instruments in hard
IMC at low altitude. Chute saved pilot, no injuries. Aircraft not heavily
damaged, may fly again. No online report available.

4/20/04: Crashed on departure. Four fatalities. Chute was apparently not
deployed. From witness descriptions (plane went up to about 30 feet AGL,
descended to 10 feet AGL, then zoomed up to 400 feet AGL) seems reasonable
to describe as a stall or stall/spin accident. See
http://www.cirruspilots.org/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=members&Number=85720

>
> It appears that stalls are an unreasonably large percentage of accidents,

While I think that any number over zero is unreasonably large, I'll bet
you'd find approximately the same percentage for other airplanes.

> especially for a plane that was billed as stall-proof.

Whoa! Who said that? Please provide some evidence that Cirrus EVER said
this. If they represent the plane as stall-proof, why are stalls a part of
the factory flight training curriculum?

> CFIT seems to be the
> biggest problem in the Cirrus, which would seem to support the
> "doctor-killer" theory. Maintenance is also a real problem area.
>
> Although it does not show up directly in the NTSB database, it appears
that
> bounced landings resulting in prop and tail strikes are a problem, though
> not a deadly one. I don't know how many of the bounced landings were
caused
> by stalls.

Yup. That was much more of a problem early on, due to poor instruction
during factory training. Several of the prop/tail strikes occurred during
factory training. Cirrus fired the contractor doing the training and the
problem has greatly diminished.

-Mike

Peter Duniho

April 26th 04, 04:54 AM

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:AIUic.32956$w96.2306929@attbi_s54...
> Hmmm - I agree - I meant that the use of speed brakes would allow slowing
> without using as much pitch - does that make sense?

It's true that it does, at least initially. However, AFAIK, speed brakes do
not change the lift characteristics for the wing, so as the speed reduces as
a result of the speed brakes, the pitch angle still needs to increase in
order to provide the same lift.

Speed brakes can help you slow down without shallowing your descent or
increasing the G force on the airplane (as would happen using pitch to slow
down), but otherwise, you still wind up just as likely to stall with speed
brakes as you do without.

Pete

Peter Duniho

April 26th 04, 04:58 AM

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> [...] If
> you had speed breaks you would allow the pilot more options to control
> descent given that right now the system that governs the RPM/MP has
limited
> ability to slow the plane without cutting the throttle.

How is that different from every other airplane without speed brakes, where
you need to reduce the throttle in order to slow down without changing your
flight path?

> Bottom line is that if a person has speed breaks, he is less likely to fly
> slow because he can shed speed whenever needed.

Dude, seems to me that by now, you've seen "speed brakes" spelled correctly
often enough that it's time you start doing so yourself.

> Bottom line, the phony Fadec system isn't really all that good.

Funny...lots of people find it works just fine. It's not a FADEC, by the
way.

Pete

Don Tuite

April 26th 04, 05:14 AM

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 01:44:39 GMT, "Vaughn"
> wrote:

> Don't get me wrong, I think the chute is a great thing, in the case of
>midair, loss of control, control failure etc. it provides a unique survival
>option; but it should be no replacement for good flying qualities. Pulling the
>chute not only terminates the flight, but guarantees damage to the airframe,
>guarantees an off-field landing, guarantees unwanted publicity, and puts the
>lives of the occupants and possibly even people on the ground in serious danger.
>A capability for a normal spin recovery sounds like a much better idea.

Except spin recovery isn't part of the curriculum any more.

Don

Dave Katz

April 26th 04, 06:32 AM

I've got about 500 hours in both SR20s and SR22s, so I'll throw out
some real world experience (not that it's worth anything in a
newsgroup, but here goes.)

The folks claiming that they stall without warning and are then
difficult to control have obviously never flown one. You get plenty
of warning (as required in Part 23) by buffeting, mushy controls, and
the stall warning. If you keep going, the inner part of the wing
stalls first (it is at a higher angle of attack than the outer part;
take a look at the wing cuffs.) When that happens you still have
aileron control if you're sloppy and try to use it. It feels like a
washboard road. If you are sufficiently uncoordinated you can drop a
wing, and if you try hard enough you can spin one, but you have to be
asleep at the yoke to do this.

They are not particularly difficult to slow down because of the fixed
gear. You can deploy half flaps at a relatively generous 120 KIAS.
Much easier to deal with than the Baron I fly.

I'm not sure where the "too small flaps" claim comes from; they seem
to work just fine, and making them bigger would reduce the speed at which
they can be deployed, and make the power-off descent angle with full
flaps even more impressive than it is now.

Handling is responsive and predictable. They're way fun to yank and
bank. The side yoke does not require much force and comes naturally
very quickly.

The trim is a bit of a pain (it runs too fast) but you get used to it
pretty quickly.

The paranoia about spins and spin recovery seems overblown. The test
pilots have spun them and recovered, and nowhere in the POH does it
say that spins are "unrecoverable" (contrary to another posting here.)
Until recently the POH suggested normal spin recovery technique,
though this was removed in a recent revision, presumably as a CYA
move. I have heard, though cannot confirm, that some kind of spin
certification will be required for JAA certification, so hopefully
that will put this issue to rest.

Having said that, part 23 only requires recovery from a one turn spin,
which isn't really a spin at all. The drama about the "death zone"
below 900' is seriously overblown; I suspect that the majority of
pilots have never had spin training, and even those that have are
unlikely to recover from the usual base-to-final spin in *any*
aircraft.

The 4000-ish hour life limit on the SR22 is a certification artifact;
Cirrus chose to use a very conservative formula based on the SR20
airframe life tests in order to speed the SR22 certification process,
but will be extending the life based on testing.

I think you'll find the *vast* majority of Cirrus owners are very
happy with their purchases (with the exception of ArtP, who seems
to have gotten a lemon.) I've never had a maintenance problem that
cancelled (or ended) a flight, and the only failures I've had have
been with OEM parts, and this is true of most owners.

The only design characteristic that I think can cause handling
problems for low-time transitioning pilots is the high wing loading,
which requires higher takeoff and landing speeds (rotate at 70 KIAS,
final approach at 70-75 in an SR20 or 75-80 in an SR22) and causes
serious sink rates if you get too slow. You have to land them like
heavy airplanes--hold the approach attitude all the way into the
flare, and no 50 AGL roundouts like in 172s. A number of the landing
accidents were due to this (IMHO), coupled with insufficient training
(which I understand has been fixed, though it's been three years since
I last had the factory training.) Early on the trainers were
recommending coming in five knots faster than the POH numbers in order
to accommodate sloppy 172 technique, which results in excessive float,
and bouncing, and things go badly after that if you don't immediately
go around. If you have the discipline to fly the numbers, they are
pussycats to land, and have more than enough energy to flare and land
smoothly even with the power at idle.

As far as the accidents go, simply pointing at statistics and calling
the plane a death trap and saying that they are "falling out of the
sky" isn't supportable by the facts. Of the eight fatal accidents
(not counting the flight test accident) five (and possibly a sixth,
though there isn't much data on the crash in Spain) were CFIT. Hard
to blame these on the plane per se.

Ultimately it comes down to whether people do more stupid things in
Cirrus aircraft than in other brands. Statistically it's too early to
tell, and the time-in-type average is very low. Basically, you can
cook the numbers to support your position, regardless. I think it's
probably true that someone who is going to be stupid enough to scud
run at night or in mountainous terrain is probably more likely to die
in a Cirrus than a Cessna because of the speed. It may well be that
pilots feel safer in a Cirrus than in a 25 year old 172 (I know I do,
and it's arguably true, particularly IFR) and perhaps that leads the
marginal ones to take bigger risks. But there is no shortage of
pilots doing dumb things in all manner of aircraft, and dying on a
regular basis. Time will tell.

Thomas Borchert

April 26th 04, 06:46 AM

Dude,

One way to look at it is total aircraft numbers versus aircraft with
fatal accidents - which is what Richard Collins does in the latest
issue of Flying. Cirrus is comparable to the 182S that way. Many other
planes are much worse. The one fatal accident after the mag appeared
doesn't change that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 26th 04, 08:02 AM

C,

> Well, we realize that you think this plane was built by the flawless gods,

Why the ad hominems? Just because I don't agree with you?

>The Cirrus cannot.
>

Again: how do you know? Data, please.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 26th 04, 08:02 AM

Vaughn,

> A capability for a normal spin recovery sounds like a much better idea.
>

Define normal.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 26th 04, 08:02 AM

Edr,

> prior to the current rash of
> accidents.
>

only one of which was fatal...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 26th 04, 08:42 AM

Dave,

> I have heard, though cannot confirm, that some kind of spin
> certification will be required for JAA certification, so hopefully
> that will put this issue to rest.
>

Coming from a JAA country: Yes, the JAA seems to hesitate to certify
the aircraft without the "standard" spin testing. All Cirri (?) in
Europe are US-registered so far. Cirrus and JAA seem to be still
debating the issue, since AFAIK the JAA/FAA mutual acceptance of
certification agreements seem to require the JAA to certify it. Then
again, those same agreements should have led to a much quicker
certification of the Thielert Centurion by the FAA, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Vaughn

April 26th 04, 11:12 AM

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 01:44:39 GMT, "Vaughn"
> > wrote:
>
> >A capability for a normal spin recovery sounds like a much better idea.
>
> Except spin recovery isn't part of the curriculum any more.

We are not talking about a trainer, we are talking about an advanced,
owner-flown, plane that will occasionally end up in an inadvertant spin. Any
pilot that has enough experience to be flying one shout at least be able to
recite the standard spin recovery procedure.

Vaughn

>
> Don

Vaughn

April 26th 04, 11:15 AM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Vaughn,
>
> > A capability for a normal spin recovery sounds like a much better idea.
> >
>
> Define normal.

The "standard" spin recovery or one that is specified in the POH that does
not guarantee a (however gentle) crash.

Vaughn

>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

EDR

April 26th 04, 01:10 PM

In article >, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

> > prior to the current rash of accidents.

> Edr,
> only one of which was fatal...

What is your point?
That it has to be a fatal to be an accident, and if there are no fatals
it doesn't count?

C J Campbell

April 26th 04, 02:04 PM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> C,
>
> > Well, we realize that you think this plane was built by the flawless
gods,
>
> Why the ad hominems? Just because I don't agree with you?

Your POV is taking on the tone of a religious fanatic. You seem unwilling to
accept any criticism of the Cirrus whatsoever, even well-established facts.

>
> >The Cirrus cannot.
> >
>
> Again: how do you know? Data, please.

Cirrus' own web site says so. So does the POH. The Cirrus cannot recover
from a spin without pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests. The
parachute cannot be deployed below 900' AGL. Therefore, the Cirrus cannot
recover from a spin when below 900' AGL. Many other aircraft can. So far,
however, you have been unwilling to accept any data that disagrees with your
point of view.

C J Campbell

April 26th 04, 02:06 PM

"Dave Katz" > wrote in message
...
> I've got about 500 hours in both SR20s and SR22s, so I'll throw out
> some real world experience (not that it's worth anything in a
> newsgroup, but here goes.)
>
> The folks claiming that they stall without warning

Anyone here make such a claim? Or is this just a straw man argument?

Dude

April 26th 04, 02:35 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...] If
> > you had speed breaks you would allow the pilot more options to control
> > descent given that right now the system that governs the RPM/MP has
> limited
> > ability to slow the plane without cutting the throttle.
>
> How is that different from every other airplane without speed brakes,
where
> you need to reduce the throttle in order to slow down without changing
your
> flight path?
>

I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The combination will
slow my plane without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an
argument about shock cooling. Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not
change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it. The Cirrus does
not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec)

> > Bottom line is that if a person has speed breaks, he is less likely to
fly
> > slow because he can shed speed whenever needed.
>
> Dude, seems to me that by now, you've seen "speed brakes" spelled
correctly
> often enough that it's time you start doing so yourself.
>

LOL, thanks, I will try.

> > Bottom line, the phony Fadec system isn't really all that good.
>
> Funny...lots of people find it works just fine. It's not a FADEC, by the
> way.
>
> Pete
>

Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot frigging
louder than the ones that think it works just fine.

Dude

April 26th 04, 03:05 PM

>
> As far as the accidents go, simply pointing at statistics and calling
> the plane a death trap and saying that they are "falling out of the
> sky" isn't supportable by the facts. Of the eight fatal accidents
> (not counting the flight test accident) five (and possibly a sixth,
> though there isn't much data on the crash in Spain) were CFIT. Hard
> to blame these on the plane per se.
>

"per se"?

Accusing those of us who think the statistics are relevant of hyperbole will
not save any lives, nor win the argument. The fatalities per 100,000 flight
hours stat is a very valid and fair stat.

Once again, you can't take out the "stupidity factor" from one
manufacturer's stats, and not the others.

> Ultimately it comes down to whether people do more stupid things in
> Cirrus aircraft than in other brands. Statistically it's too early to
> tell, and the time-in-type average is very low. Basically, you can
> cook the numbers to support your position, regardless. I think it's
> probably true that someone who is going to be stupid enough to scud
> run at night or in mountainous terrain is probably more likely to die
> in a Cirrus than a Cessna because of the speed. It may well be that
> pilots feel safer in a Cirrus than in a 25 year old 172 (I know I do,
> and it's arguably true, particularly IFR) and perhaps that leads the
> marginal ones to take bigger risks. But there is no shortage of
> pilots doing dumb things in all manner of aircraft, and dying on a
> regular basis. Time will tell.

I believe they are over a million fleet hours, and I am told that is
generally considered the time at which the numbers become valid. It often
seems reasonable that if a design appeals to risk takers, or somehow
promotes risk taking, then we can dismiss the results. In reality, this is
a terrible mistake.

There are so many ways to approach this argument.

One would be that its the fatalities that matter, and if you cannot change
them, then the cause is not important.

Another would be that everyone of us is likely to decide that we are not one
of those idiots. In fact, the ones that are dead likely thought that.

The idea that the feeling of safety causes risk taking is meaningless in the
end. Either the design is safe or it is not. There is almost no practical
way to prove the cause without changing the results. Therefore, the design
is bad until it is found to be performing more safely. If Cirrus implements
a change, and then gets different results, then we can talk again. (the
parachute fix seems to have helped).

If the problem is indeed personality, perhaps they are selling the planes to
the wrong people. I would not necessarily disagree that this is the case
except to point out that they are not changing their sales practices and
other than looking at experience levels what are you going to do anyway.

Cirrus could get some good PR by simply dropping the SRV idea, and requiring
a high level of hours to buy their SR20 and SR22. I don't see this
happening, so I guess we will have a bunch more Thurman Munson Jr.'s.

Peter R.

April 26th 04, 03:12 PM

Mike Murdock ) wrote:

> Apparently doing acrobatics despite placards prohibiting them. See
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020502X00613&key=1

As a local to this particular crash and as one who has talked to many about
it, I am of the belief that these two pilots were simply checking out their
newly-delivered Cirrus using all the standard private pilot air maneuvers
(stalls, steep turns, etc.). They were not performing prohibited
aerobatics.

What appeared to have doomed them was their decision to perform multiple
power-on stalls in a row. During a power-on stall, the pilot botched the
recovery and the aircraft entered into a secondary stall followed by a
spin.

The question that will never be answered is why didn't they use the BRS?

--
Peter

Dude

April 26th 04, 03:21 PM

I would have to say that any plane is relatively safe while in the hangar.

This may be a way to look at it, but it would not be a way to find out
anything.

I have read many of your posts, and consider you bright and well informed.
However, I have to disagree with you on this one.

It is only the risk involved in USING the plane that we are discussing here.
The risk of OWNING the plane would be more of a financial issue. I don't
much about Mr. Colins, but he seems to be stretching on this one.

There is a case to be made that Cirrus as a company has done a lot to
rejuvenate general aviation, and that by hammering them we are only creating
an environment where other innovators will just be scared away. I think
that many in the press are willing to listen to Cirrus' arguments, and give
them a break for this reason.

I think that this forum would be a good place to get the facts straight
though. We have better alternatives - Diamond and Lancair. It may not be
true that every Cirrus sale comes at the expense of one of the others, but I
would be much happier seeing more of the other two brands being sold
instead.

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dude,
>
> One way to look at it is total aircraft numbers versus aircraft with
> fatal accidents - which is what Richard Collins does in the latest
> issue of Flying. Cirrus is comparable to the 182S that way. Many other
> planes are much worse. The one fatal accident after the mag appeared
> doesn't change that.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Peter R.

April 26th 04, 03:25 PM

Dennis ) wrote:

> Great! You'll have to look me up while there! I'll be the one with
> "MyAirplane.com" on his shirt.. (well, one of them anyway). We may get a
> booth, its up in the air right now (and only 2 weeks untillt he show).

I'll be looking for the shirt, as I am very familiar with your excellent
website. :)

> Will you be staying over the 2 days? Wondering what camping would be like
> on that field... or if its even allowed.

No, I am only attending on Saturday, unless the weather is really bad
Saturday but nice on Sunday. Since I am flying in from Syracuse, a mere 40
minute flight away, I am did not have plans to stay there.

I strongly doubt that camping would be allowed on the airport grounds.
Maybe someday this will be the Oshkosh of the Northeast, but for now the
event is still in its infancy.

--
Peter

Thomas Borchert

April 26th 04, 04:00 PM

C,

> The Cirrus cannot recover
> from a spin without pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests
>

Ok, quote me where it says that in the POH.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 26th 04, 04:04 PM

Dude,

> I have read many of your posts, and consider you bright and well informed.

Why, thanks! ;-)

> It is only the risk involved in USING the plane that we are discussing here.
> The risk of OWNING the plane would be more of a financial issue. I don't
> much about Mr. Colins, but he seems to be stretching on this one.

You know, I agree. The problem, as we all know, of course, is that there is no
reliable count of hours flown. So anyone can amssage the numbers anyway he or
she likes. i still take strong objection to statements like "falling out of
the sky". That's BS any way you look at the numbers.

> There is a case to be made that Cirrus as a company has done a lot to
> rejuvenate general aviation, and that by hammering them we are only creating
> an environment where other innovators will just be scared away.

Yes, I think that many pilots do tend to do that - while at the same time
clamoring for innovation.

>
> I think that this forum would be a good place to get the facts straight
> though. We have better alternatives - Diamond and Lancair.

Well, there are hardly any Lancairs flying, so in that case we really don't
have any numbers to go by, I would say. And the Diamond has a great record -
but hey, it's from Old Europe, so an all-American GA pilot can't well buy that
crap now, can he? (yes, that was irony, but a lot of truth in it for some
people...)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 26th 04, 04:04 PM

Edr,

> That it has to be a fatal to be an accident, and if there are no fatals
> it doesn't count?
>

it does - but I don't think the statistics make the Cirrus stand out for
non-fatals.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dave Katz

April 26th 04, 04:22 PM

"Vaughn" > writes:

> We are not talking about a trainer, we are talking about an advanced,
> owner-flown, plane that will occasionally end up in an inadvertant spin. Any
> pilot that has enough experience to be flying one shout at least be able to
> recite the standard spin recovery procedure.

Saying that the plane "will occasionally end up in an inadvertent
spin" is a lot like calling it a plane that "will occasionally end up
crumpled on the side of a mountain in clouds and freezing rain." You
have to be trying really hard to spin one; it's hard to pin that on the
plane.

We can probably all recite the standard spin recovery procedure. I
suspect that a significant number of us have never experienced a spin
nor actually done the procedure, and should it happen in real life will
probably be really confused and disoriented for long enough to die.

When I moved to California I was able to recite the standard earthquake
procedure, but when it happened the first time I had no idea what was
happening to me until it was already over...

Dave Katz

April 26th 04, 04:23 PM

"C J Campbell" > writes:

> "Dave Katz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I've got about 500 hours in both SR20s and SR22s, so I'll throw out
> > some real world experience (not that it's worth anything in a
> > newsgroup, but here goes.)
> >
> > The folks claiming that they stall without warning
>
> Anyone here make such a claim? Or is this just a straw man argument?

I think the claim was something along the lines of "it's flying and
then suddenly it's not flying." I interpreted that as having no
warning in the stall.

EDR

April 26th 04, 05:17 PM

In article >, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

> C,
>
> > The Cirrus cannot recover
> > from a spin without pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests
> >
>
> Ok, quote me where it says that in the POH.

SR22 POH, Section 3 Emergency Procedures, page 20 (3-20)

EDR

April 26th 04, 05:23 PM

In article >, EDR
> wrote:

> In article >, Thomas Borchert
> > wrote:
>
> > C,
> >
> > > The Cirrus cannot recover
> > > from a spin without pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests
> > >
> >
> > Ok, quote me where it says that in the POH.
>
> SR22 POH, Section 3 Emergency Procedures, page 20 (3-20)

Section 3 Cirrus Design
Emergency Procedures SR22
Spins
The SR22 is not approved for spins, and has not been tested or
certified for spin recovery characteristics. The only approved and
demonstrated method of spin recovery is activation of the Cirrus
Airframe Parachute System (See CAPS Deployment, this section).
Because of this, if the aircraft ³departs controlled flight,² the CAPS
must be deployed.
While the stall characteristics of the SR22 make accidental entry into a
spin extremely unlikely, it is possible. Spin entry can be avoided by
using good airmanship: coordinated use of controls in turns, proper
airspeed control following the recommendations of this Handbook, and
never abusing the flight controls with accelerated inputs when close to
the stall (see Stalls, Section 4).
If, at the stall, the controls are misapplied and abused accelerated
inputs are made to the elevator, rudder and/or ailerons, an abrupt wing
drop may be felt and a spiral or spin may be entered. In some cases it
may be difficult to determine if the aircraft has entered a spiral or
the beginning of a spin.
ï WARNING ï
In all cases, if the aircraft enters an unusual attitude from
which recovery is not expected before ground impact,
immediate deployment of the CAPS is required.
The minimum demonstrated altitude loss for a CAPS
deployment from a one-turn spin is 920 feet. Activation at
higher altitudes provides enhanced safety margins for
parachute recoveries. Do not waste time and altitude trying to
recover from a spiral/spin before activating CAPS.
Inadvertent Spin Entry
1. CAPS .................................................. Activate

John Harper

April 26th 04, 05:27 PM

"Dave Katz" > wrote in message
...
> "Vaughn" > writes:
>
> Saying that the plane "will occasionally end up in an inadvertent
> spin" is a lot like calling it a plane that "will occasionally end up
> crumpled on the side of a mountain in clouds and freezing rain." You
> have to be trying really hard to spin one; it's hard to pin that on the
> plane.
>

Nicely put. Actually I think it must be pretty hard to spin just about
anything accidentally, but people do. The plane gives you a LOT of
warning before it stalls - any plane. For a start it slows down, which
is fairly noticeable. (I forget exactly what I was doing over the weekend,
but for whatever reason I ended up a few knots slow - nowhere near
stalling - and it immediately just felt wrong, before I even looked at
the airspeed and confirmed it). It has a high angle of attack. In many
planes (though not really the case in high-wing Cessnas) there is a buffet.
(There is in the Cirrus iirc). Then to spin a wing will start to drop, and
in the Cirrus you will still have some aileron control even if you do the
wrong thing and try to fix it with the stick. At this point in just about
any plane, Muller-Beggs will work fine (let go of everything and wait).

That said, it strikes me that everyone ought to do some spin training,
maybe after they've got a few more hours than during PPL training.
It's fun, it's interesting, and it could save your life.

Now if you want a plane that is a challenge to fly, I flew a Waco over
the weekend. Now THAT is different. Things like absolutely zero
forward visibility during taxi, take-off and landing - and precious
little even when you're flying. I'll admit that my first couple of take-offs
and landings were not that great (well, none of them were really
GREAT but they did get better). But boy, what a lot of fun.

John

Andrew Gideon

April 26th 04, 06:17 PM

Mike Beede wrote:

> I've flown a Cirrus and while it does land fast compared to say a 182, it
> didn't seem to be particularly hard to slow down compared to say a 182RG
> with the gear up.

That's true, but I can drop the gear in my club's 182RG once below 140
(although I avoid doing so until below 120 just to be kind). The gear
doesn't add a *lot* of friction, but there's enough to make a difference.

- Andrew

Vaughn Simon

April 26th 04, 06:27 PM

"Dave Katz" > wrote in message
...
> "Vaughn" > writes:
>
>
> Saying that the plane "will occasionally end up in an inadvertent
> spin" is a lot like calling it a plane that "will occasionally end up
> crumpled on the side of a mountain in clouds and freezing rain."

True, but most planes can recover from a spin but not from a crash into
a mountain so I don't get your comparison.

>You have to be trying really hard to spin one; it's hard to pin that on
the
> plane.

I am not blaming the plane! This is a serious plane that will be flown
IFR by owner-pilots who do not fly actual IFR every day; as such, it will
occasionally end up in a spin. The BRS will give a wonderful last-ditch
option that a certain Kennedy would have appreciated, but IMO that does not
substitute for the capability of recovering normally should you spin out of
the bottom of a cloud or (for example) end up in an inadvertant
training-induced spin.

Again, I love the BRS but think that it should not substitute for
live-saving flying qualities.

>
> We can probably all recite the standard spin recovery procedure. I
> suspect that a significant number of us have never experienced a spin
> nor actually done the procedure, and should it happen in real life will
> probably be really confused and disoriented for long enough to die.

That is a whole 'nuther thread.

Vaughn

Michael

April 26th 04, 06:28 PM

Jeff > wrote
> the SR22 is fast compared to other planes with smaller engines, but compare it
> to a plane with the same 310 HP engine, I dont think you will see much speed
> difference.
>
> what other planes out there have a 310 HP engine?

The 300 hp IO-550 is an option on at least the S-model Bonanza (and
probably many others). A friend of mine has one and I've flown it -
it's a great airplane, and it will comfortably cruise at 180 kts on
16-17 gph.

Michael

Michael

April 26th 04, 06:35 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote
> Therefore, the Cirrus cannot
> recover from a spin when below 900' AGL. Many other aircraft can.

Name one aircraft that can cruise better than 170 kts, carry four
people, and can recover from a spin at 900 AGL.

Michael

Dude

April 26th 04, 06:55 PM

I don't know for sure, but I would put 20 on the new lancair.

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote
> > Therefore, the Cirrus cannot
> > recover from a spin when below 900' AGL. Many other aircraft can.
>
> Name one aircraft that can cruise better than 170 kts, carry four
> people, and can recover from a spin at 900 AGL.
>
> Michael

Dude

April 26th 04, 06:58 PM

"Dave Katz" > wrote in message
...
> "Vaughn" > writes:
>
> > We are not talking about a trainer, we are talking about an
advanced,
> > owner-flown, plane that will occasionally end up in an inadvertant spin.
Any
> > pilot that has enough experience to be flying one shout at least be able
to
> > recite the standard spin recovery procedure.
>
> Saying that the plane "will occasionally end up in an inadvertent
> spin" is a lot like calling it a plane that "will occasionally end up
> crumpled on the side of a mountain in clouds and freezing rain." You
> have to be trying really hard to spin one; it's hard to pin that on the
> plane.
>

No, you don't have to be trying real hard to spin one. If this were true,
people would not be dying due to approach and departure stalls.

We are a many of us excellent pilots on the ground. Stuff happens in the
air. People make mistakes.

> We can probably all recite the standard spin recovery procedure. I
> suspect that a significant number of us have never experienced a spin
> nor actually done the procedure, and should it happen in real life will
> probably be really confused and disoriented for long enough to die.
>
> When I moved to California I was able to recite the standard earthquake
> procedure, but when it happened the first time I had no idea what was
> happening to me until it was already over...

Dave Katz

April 26th 04, 07:02 PM

"Dude" > writes:

> > though there isn't much data on the crash in Spain) were CFIT. Hard
> > to blame these on the plane per se.
> >
>
> "per se"?

Trying to separate out the "plane is a death trap" argument from the "plane
attracts idiots" argument.

>
> Accusing those of us who think the statistics are relevant of hyperbole will
> not save any lives, nor win the argument. The fatalities per 100,000 flight
> hours stat is a very valid and fair stat.

And like all statistics it says only what it says, and drawing
conclusions from a statistic (particularly a single one) is very
risky. You have to ask a series of questions: What does the statistic
actually measure? Is the measurement statistically significant? Are
similar statistics comparable, and what do the comparisons mean? What
does the statistic have to say as a predictor for an individual (which
is really what people are concerned with)?

For example, if there's never been a fatality in a DA40, does that
mean that a Cirrus is infinitely more dangerous? If it turns out that
lots of idiots by Cirrus aircraft, does that mean that if you decide
to buy one then you as an individual are more likely to become an
idiot?

The statistics (assuming that they pass significance tests) really
tell you only that something is going on, but they can't tell you
what. This is a red flag to go and actually examine the accident
records and try to make an honest evaluation and decide for yourself
what they mean to you.

> Once again, you can't take out the "stupidity factor" from one
> manufacturer's stats, and not the others.

I fully agree, and herein lies the heart of the issue. Since there is
no independent "idiots per 100,000 pilots" statistic measured, it's
very difficult to quantitatively describe it. Furthermore, an
anecdotal analysis of GA accidents gives the impression that the
"stupidity factor" overwhelms all other contributors, which implies
that the planes, per se (there's that phrase again) are not a major
part of the problem. So unless the plane causes you to become an
idiot, as an individual thinking of purchasing one the statistics say
almost nothing about how much risk the plane itself poses to you in
particular.

> I believe they are over a million fleet hours, and I am told that is
> generally considered the time at which the numbers become valid.

This would imply an average of somewhere around 700 hours per
aircraft, which is way off the mark, considering that probably close
to half of the fleet was delivered in the last year. I suspect that
the fleet time is at most probably half of that, but of course we're just
making up numbers since this is never actually measured.

> Another would be that everyone of us is likely to decide that we are not one
> of those idiots. In fact, the ones that are dead likely thought that.

"Aviation, where all of the children are above average." ;-)

> Either the design is safe or it is not.

C'mon, this is patently and obviously not true, unless your measure of
"safe" is "nothing bad ever happens" in which case all designs are
unsafe. Short of pieces coming off, it's almost impossible to measure
safety, except in very specific ways (things like impact tests, though
those are not necessarily predictors of anything useful either) or very
general ways (statistics, which don't tell you much.)

> There is almost no practical
> way to prove the cause without changing the results. Therefore, the design
> is bad until it is found to be performing more safely. If Cirrus implements
> a change, and then gets different results, then we can talk again. (the
> parachute fix seems to have helped).

I think you're overreaching logically here. Perhaps I can restate it:
if there is a statistically significant difference in (accidents,
fatalities, choose your measure) then there is likely to be some
factor or factors that could be changed to reduce it. It's not just
"design" or training or even marketing; it's also things like low
time-in-type and mission profile (long XCs may be inherently more
risky due to unfamiliar terrain, multiple weather systems, etc.)

I don't see that a design change of the physical airplane will keep
people from doing stupid stuff (I suppose TAWS might reduce CFIT
accidents, but people would scream "crutch," which I agree with to a
point, though I suspect it will be standard in the avionics before
long.)

Cirrus has implemented changes to the training program, and COPA has
provided a number of resources, including recurrent training and
critical decisionmaking seminars, and a number of the insurance
underwriters are raising requirements for time and training. Whether
these changes will reduce the accident rate (or have already) will
take another chunk of time to determine. There are a few data points,
however; the rate of landing accidents (prop strikes, etc.) seem to
have dropped since they got rid of the original training organization
and started stressing speed and landing attitude control more. The
situation is not static by any means.

> If the problem is indeed personality, perhaps they are selling the planes to
> the wrong people. I would not necessarily disagree that this is the case
> except to point out that they are not changing their sales practices and
> other than looking at experience levels what are you going to do anyway.

I don't think either of us have any facts as to whether or not Cirrus
is changing their sales practices. And as you note, it's also not
clear how a sales rep is supposed to determine whether a customer is a
"wrong person" or not; they're not psychologists or mind readers, so
short of someone's experience level (or at least how they represent
it, as they're not getting a background investigation) there's not
much to go on, and it's unclear that overall experience levels
correlate with the accidents in any case.

> Cirrus could get some good PR by simply dropping the SRV idea, and requiring
> a high level of hours to buy their SR20 and SR22. I don't see this
> happening, so I guess we will have a bunch more Thurman Munson Jr.'s.

It's unclear that this would actually help. One could make a case
that an SR20 or SRV would be an excellent aircraft in which to take
primary and instrument training, assuming that the pilot understands
that the process will take longer than it would in a 152. Typical
trainers are more forgiving, but after the first ten hours I'd argue
that this is a detriment, as it allows all kinds of bad habits (like
the 50' AGL roundout) to develop. Teaching speed discipline on
landing, and getting early and thorough exposure to the avionics,
could well make them better pilots. There are a fair number of pilots
who bought an SR20 to learn in, and so far as I know, none of them
have come to a tragic end. As such, their statistics look excellent,
for what that's worth.

The SR22 is arguably too much of a handful as a primary trainer,
though a few people have done it. The insurance people are the main
gatekeepers in this case. The number of low-total-time pilots flying
SR22s is probably quite small.

Dude

April 26th 04, 07:04 PM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dude,
>
> > I have read many of your posts, and consider you bright and well
informed.
>
> Why, thanks! ;-)
>

Your Welcome

> > It is only the risk involved in USING the plane that we are discussing
here.
> > The risk of OWNING the plane would be more of a financial issue. I
don't
> > much about Mr. Colins, but he seems to be stretching on this one.
>
> You know, I agree. The problem, as we all know, of course, is that there
is no
> reliable count of hours flown. So anyone can amssage the numbers anyway he
or
> she likes. i still take strong objection to statements like "falling out
of
> the sky". That's BS any way you look at the numbers.
>

Ahh, there is the rub. It is tought to estimate fleet hours. I just don't
think that the people making the estimates have a bone to pick on this one.
Yes, Falling out of the sky is hyperbole, and a bad parachute pun.

> > There is a case to be made that Cirrus as a company has done a lot to
> > rejuvenate general aviation, and that by hammering them we are only
creating
> > an environment where other innovators will just be scared away.
>
> Yes, I think that many pilots do tend to do that - while at the same time
> clamoring for innovation.
>
> >
> > I think that this forum would be a good place to get the facts straight
> > though. We have better alternatives - Diamond and Lancair.
>
> Well, there are hardly any Lancairs flying, so in that case we really
don't
> have any numbers to go by, I would say. And the Diamond has a great
record -
> but hey, it's from Old Europe, so an all-American GA pilot can't well buy
that
> crap now, can he? (yes, that was irony, but a lot of truth in it for some
> people...)
>

The reports on the Lancair so far are that it flies much like the Diamond
Star in stall. If anyone hasn't stalled a Diamond, they should go rent one.
If Lancair can do that and still get the speed - God Bless Them!

> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

ArtP

April 26th 04, 07:13 PM

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:12:43 -0400, Peter R.
> wrote:

>
>The question that will never be answered is why didn't they use the BRS?

Why do you assume they didn't. At the time of that crash Cirrus had a
history of parachute deployment failures. One under actual and 2
during a factory sponsored demonstration to prove the system worked..
After that the deployment mechanism in the entire fleet was replaced
with an AD. The last SB that I am aware of for the parachute was
issued less then 6 months ago.

Peter R.

April 26th 04, 07:28 PM

ArtP ) wrote:

> >The question that will never be answered is why didn't they use the BRS?
>
> Why do you assume they didn't. At the time of that crash Cirrus had a
> history of parachute deployment failures. One under actual and 2
> during a factory sponsored demonstration to prove the system worked..
> After that the deployment mechanism in the entire fleet was replaced
> with an AD. The last SB that I am aware of for the parachute was
> issued less then 6 months ago.

Good point. The above questions should read: "Why did the BRS fail to
deploy during the spin?" Was it the PIC's decision or a failure of the
deployment system?

This very issue is going to be argued in court, as the wife of one of the
pilots is suing Cirrus on the grounds that a defect may have prevented the
deployment of the 'chute.

--
Peter

EDR

April 26th 04, 07:53 PM

In article <1082997048.902464@sj-nntpcache-3>, John Harper
> wrote:

> At this point in just about
> any plane, Muller-Beggs will work fine (let go of everything and wait).

NOT TRUE!!!
Go back and re read Gene Beggs' SPORT AEROBATIC articles.

John Harper

April 26th 04, 08:01 PM

What do you mean, "go back"? I've never read them in the
first place...

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article <1082997048.902464@sj-nntpcache-3>, John Harper
> > wrote:
>
> > At this point in just about
> > any plane, Muller-Beggs will work fine (let go of everything and wait).
>
> NOT TRUE!!!
> Go back and re read Gene Beggs' SPORT AEROBATIC articles.

Jim Carter

April 26th 04, 08:39 PM

I seem to remember the Bellanca Super Viking or may the turbo-Super came
with 300 ponys up front. Of course that uses pretty old, cloth covered
technology. Surely the Cirrus is much faster since it is new technology
(laughing with tongue in cheek)...

--
Jim Carter
Seen on a bumper sticker:
If you can read this, thank a teacher
If you can read this in English, thank a soldier.

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> Dennis
> the SR22 is fast compared to other planes with smaller engines, but
compare it
> to a plane with the same 310 HP engine, I dont think you will see much
speed
> difference.
>
> what other planes out there have a 310 HP engine?
>
> Dennis wrote:
>
> > Holy crap! I guess I should have done some more research first... :(
> >
> > I really, really, really like the performance spec's and looks of the
> > Currus.. My wife read your comment and now she's put off on the idea...
> > Gonna have to find something else now before she but the breaks on a new
> > plane purchase..
> >
> > Dennis
> > N3868J
> > MyAirplane.com
> >
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I personally would not buy one of these airplanes until:
> > >
> > > 1) The airframe life limit of 4,030 hours is rescinded or at least
> > tripled;
> > > and
> > >
> > > 2) They find out why these planes are falling out of the sky with such
> > > regularity and do something about it. If this behavior keeps up, the
FAA
> > is
> > > likely to ground the entire fleet; and
> > >
> > > 3) Something is done about the atrocious quality control problems that
> > > Cirrus has been having.
> > >
> > >
>

Thomas Borchert

April 26th 04, 08:57 PM

Edr,

> > > > The Cirrus cannot recover
> > > > from a spin without pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests
>

As I thought: nowhere does it say it "cannot recover from a spin without
pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests". It says "has not been
demonstrated". There's a subtle but important difference.

Oh, and a question: Using the common method of spin recovery from a one turn
spin on, say, a Bonanza, what's the altitude loss? Less than 920 feet? Much
less? I wouldn't think so. There goes the coffin corner...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Greg Copeland

April 26th 04, 09:20 PM

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:23:46 +0000, EDR wrote:
> 1. CAPS .................................................. Activate

To me, that seems to spell out, if you're in a spin at less than 900ft,
you better use CAPS or you're toast. Furthermore, it spells out, if
you're in that situation, don't bother trying to recover. Just use CAPS.

I'd have to give the point to EDR. ;)

Fred Wolf

April 26th 04, 09:31 PM

How much does it take to recover from a spin in a Mooney or in a C172?

And also who's going to recover in a low and slow, steep angle of bank when
turning bas or final?

FW
"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote
> > Therefore, the Cirrus cannot
> > recover from a spin when below 900' AGL. Many other aircraft can.
>
> Name one aircraft that can cruise better than 170 kts, carry four
> people, and can recover from a spin at 900 AGL.
>
> Michael

Dude

April 26th 04, 09:49 PM

"Dave Katz" > wrote in message
...
> "Dude" > writes:
>
> > > though there isn't much data on the crash in Spain) were CFIT. Hard
> > > to blame these on the plane per se.
> > >
> >
> > "per se"?
>
> Trying to separate out the "plane is a death trap" argument from the
"plane
> attracts idiots" argument.
>
> >
> > Accusing those of us who think the statistics are relevant of hyperbole
will
> > not save any lives, nor win the argument. The fatalities per 100,000
flight
> > hours stat is a very valid and fair stat.
>
> And like all statistics it says only what it says, and drawing
> conclusions from a statistic (particularly a single one) is very
> risky. You have to ask a series of questions: What does the statistic
> actually measure?

Fatal accidents per 100,000 hours of flight.

Is the measurement statistically significant?

The standard appears to be that the measurement is not valid until 1,000,000
hours are reached.

Are
> similar statistics comparable, and what do the comparisons mean?

This stat does paint with a broad brush, but if all you are looking for is a
measure of average safety in average usage by average pilots (that fly that
plane) then the measure is very accurate. Yes, if you compare two models
that are used by vastly different skill levels or in different types of
missions, then you may invalidate the data by means of asking the wrong
question. That is not being done here at all.

What
> does the statistic have to say as a predictor for an individual (which
> is really what people are concerned with)?
>

Unless you are one of those people who believes you are above average, then
it means a lot. What makes one person who buys and flies a Cirrus all that
different from another? What about comparing them to other brands of new
airplanes buyers? There is no obvious difference, you will have to propose
one. This is not a picky little nit type of stat. Saying that Cirrus just
attracts idiot pilots is not enough, you need say why. I haven't seen a
good reason yet.

> For example, if there's never been a fatality in a DA40, does that
> mean that a Cirrus is infinitely more dangerous?

No, too little data on the DA40, and no, infinite would be silly.

If it turns out that
> lots of idiots by Cirrus aircraft, does that mean that if you decide
> to buy one then you as an individual are more likely to become an
> idiot?
>

NO! my point exactly. They are likely much the same as the Lancair, 182,
DA40, Piper 6, etc. (perhaps in the case of the 40 you get more beginners
as they can get insurance).

> The statistics (assuming that they pass significance tests) really
> tell you only that something is going on, but they can't tell you
> what. This is a red flag to go and actually examine the accident
> records and try to make an honest evaluation and decide for yourself
> what they mean to you.
>

That would be true, except that examining the records tell us nothing. You
should rely on the BIG RED FLAG! Seriously. If they had a common thread
that was fixed, I would grant an exceptional case (aka V tail break ups).
Until then, no.

> > Once again, you can't take out the "stupidity factor" from one
> > manufacturer's stats, and not the others.
>
> I fully agree, and herein lies the heart of the issue. Since there is
> no independent "idiots per 100,000 pilots" statistic measured, it's
> very difficult to quantitatively describe it. Furthermore, an
> anecdotal analysis of GA accidents gives the impression that the
> "stupidity factor" overwhelms all other contributors, which implies
> that the planes, per se (there's that phrase again) are not a major
> part of the problem. So unless the plane causes you to become an
> idiot, as an individual thinking of purchasing one the statistics say
> almost nothing about how much risk the plane itself poses to you in
> particular.
>

My point is that the stat is such a large macro that the idiot factor gets
rounded out. As an average idiot, we are all more likely to die flying a
Cirrus, than we are flying a 182. We are all average idiots in this stat.
It is too big to slice apart that way.

> > I believe they are over a million fleet hours, and I am told that is
> > generally considered the time at which the numbers become valid.
>
> This would imply an average of somewhere around 700 hours per
> aircraft, which is way off the mark, considering that probably close
> to half of the fleet was delivered in the last year. I suspect that
> the fleet time is at most probably half of that, but of course we're just
> making up numbers since this is never actually measured.
>
> > Another would be that everyone of us is likely to decide that we are not
one
> > of those idiots. In fact, the ones that are dead likely thought that.
>
> "Aviation, where all of the children are above average." ;-)
>
> > Either the design is safe or it is not.
>
> C'mon, this is patently and obviously not true, unless your measure of
> "safe" is "nothing bad ever happens" in which case all designs are
> unsafe. Short of pieces coming off, it's almost impossible to measure
> safety, except in very specific ways (things like impact tests, though
> those are not necessarily predictors of anything useful either) or very
> general ways (statistics, which don't tell you much.)
>

No, all you have to do is set a standard. How much more risk are you
willing to take on your flight to enjoy the Cirrus over the Cessna? If its
double, go for it. In my standard, I find the high fatality rate
unacceptable when compared to the ancient Cessna. It should be better.

> > There is almost no practical
> > way to prove the cause without changing the results. Therefore, the
design
> > is bad until it is found to be performing more safely. If Cirrus
implements
> > a change, and then gets different results, then we can talk again. (the
> > parachute fix seems to have helped).
>
> I think you're overreaching logically here. Perhaps I can restate it:
> if there is a statistically significant difference in (accidents,
> fatalities, choose your measure) then there is likely to be some
> factor or factors that could be changed to reduce it. It's not just
> "design" or training or even marketing; it's also things like low
> time-in-type and mission profile (long XCs may be inherently more
> risky due to unfamiliar terrain, multiple weather systems, etc.)
>
> I don't see that a design change of the physical airplane will keep
> people from doing stupid stuff (I suppose TAWS might reduce CFIT
> accidents, but people would scream "crutch," which I agree with to a
> point, though I suspect it will be standard in the avionics before
> long.)
>
> Cirrus has implemented changes to the training program, and COPA has
> provided a number of resources, including recurrent training and
> critical decisionmaking seminars, and a number of the insurance
> underwriters are raising requirements for time and training. Whether
> these changes will reduce the accident rate (or have already) will
> take another chunk of time to determine. There are a few data points,
> however; the rate of landing accidents (prop strikes, etc.) seem to
> have dropped since they got rid of the original training organization
> and started stressing speed and landing attitude control more. The
> situation is not static by any means.
>

Those are all good, but how does that compare with the Cessna which requires
a very small time of dual instruction for familiarity? Diamond? Lancair?
Cirrus gets this level of scrutiny by running around BRAGGING about the safe
design of their plane with a chute. In his interview I recently read, Mr. K
was all about how great his airfoil is. Also, they get this scrutiny because
they have high fatalites.

> > If the problem is indeed personality, perhaps they are selling the
planes to
> > the wrong people. I would not necessarily disagree that this is the
case
> > except to point out that they are not changing their sales practices and
> > other than looking at experience levels what are you going to do anyway.
>
> I don't think either of us have any facts as to whether or not Cirrus
> is changing their sales practices. And as you note, it's also not
> clear how a sales rep is supposed to determine whether a customer is a
> "wrong person" or not; they're not psychologists or mind readers, so
> short of someone's experience level (or at least how they represent
> it, as they're not getting a background investigation) there's not
> much to go on, and it's unclear that overall experience levels
> correlate with the accidents in any case.
>
> > Cirrus could get some good PR by simply dropping the SRV idea, and
requiring
> > a high level of hours to buy their SR20 and SR22. I don't see this
> > happening, so I guess we will have a bunch more Thurman Munson Jr.'s.
>
> It's unclear that this would actually help. One could make a case
> that an SR20 or SRV would be an excellent aircraft in which to take
> primary and instrument training, assuming that the pilot understands
> that the process will take longer than it would in a 152. Typical
> trainers are more forgiving, but after the first ten hours I'd argue
> that this is a detriment, as it allows all kinds of bad habits (like
> the 50' AGL roundout) to develop. Teaching speed discipline on
> landing, and getting early and thorough exposure to the avionics,
> could well make them better pilots. There are a fair number of pilots
> who bought an SR20 to learn in, and so far as I know, none of them
> have come to a tragic end. As such, their statistics look excellent,
> for what that's worth.
>

Well, I think the SRV and SR 20 would be better placed in the hands of more
experienced folk. Since I don't see too many of those folk clamoring for a
VFR only, glass cockpit, nearly 200k plane, I say they are using it to
attract low time pilots. I think the days of students buying a Cirrus heve
been nixxed by the insurers.

> The SR22 is arguably too much of a handful as a primary trainer,
> though a few people have done it. The insurance people are the main
> gatekeepers in this case. The number of low-total-time pilots flying
> SR22s is probably quite small.

Arguably? Definitely. You may note the 22 is doing better than the 20 in
the stats. I think this is because, as I have heard from more than one low
time prospective Cirrus buyer, the plane scares them. The 22 must have
higher time pilots at the yoke.

Peter Duniho

April 26th 04, 10:16 PM

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The combination
will
> slow my plane

Reducing throttle in a Cirrus slows the plane down too.

> without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an
> argument about shock cooling.

Then stop making statements that rely on the assumption that shock cooling
exists.

> Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not
> change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it.

So what? First of all, your assumption that high RPM, low throttle power
settings avoid shock cooling is simply wrong. If there is such a thing as
shock cooling, then reducing power will cause shock cooling, regardless of
what mix of RPM and MP you use. Additionally, at low throttle, high RPM
settings, the engine is windmilling, being driven by the airflow through the
prop, and is considered by many to be at least as damaging to an engine as
shock cooling, if not more so.

Secondly, the fact that "many pilots" fly in a way to try to avoid something
that does not happen isn't relevant to any rational discussion. Why would
an aircraft designer install speed brakes just to address some psychological
need for a pilot to use them, even if there is no practical advantage to
doing so?

In other words, if you want to play the "avoid shock cooling card", you'd
better darn well be prepared to argue that "shock cooling" is real.

> The Cirrus does
> not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec)

It's not a FADEC. It's not advertised as a FADEC. It cannot possibly be a
"phony fadec [sic]", since no one's called it a FADEC in the first place.

> Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot frigging
> louder than the ones that think it works just fine.

I haven't seen any evidence to even buttress that statement. But even if
it's true, how's that anything other than basic human nature? Why would
someone for whom everything's going fine invest a huge effort complaining
about that? Who do you expect to hear from, if not from the few folks who
have had engine problems?

Pete

Aaron Coolidge

April 26th 04, 10:20 PM

Michael > wrote:

: The 300 hp IO-550 is an option on at least the S-model Bonanza (and
: probably many others). A friend of mine has one and I've flown it -
: it's a great airplane, and it will comfortably cruise at 180 kts on
: 16-17 gph.

: Michael

The 300HP IO-550, derated to 280HP, is in the Mooney Ovation2. The Ovation2
cruises in the 175 to 190 KT range on 15-16 GPH. You can get a very nice one
from the 2000 or 2001 model year for about $300K, if you look around.
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

John Harper

April 26th 04, 10:48 PM

Won't carry 4 people (with useful fuel) though. The new
Mooneys are wonderful planes but if you even occasionally
need to carry four people then they don't work out. Shame,
because the recent Bravo is a really lovely plane to
fly.

The SR22 will carry 4 people and a good fuel load. Just
be careful to avoid (a) clouds (unless IFR) (b) mountains
(c) the temptation to say, gee, wonder what happens if I
pull this big red handle (d) confusing it with the SR20,
which won't.

John

"Aaron Coolidge" > wrote in message
...
> Michael > wrote:
>
> : The 300 hp IO-550 is an option on at least the S-model Bonanza (and
> : probably many others). A friend of mine has one and I've flown it -
> : it's a great airplane, and it will comfortably cruise at 180 kts on
> : 16-17 gph.
>
> : Michael
>
> The 300HP IO-550, derated to 280HP, is in the Mooney Ovation2. The
Ovation2
> cruises in the 175 to 190 KT range on 15-16 GPH. You can get a very nice
one
> from the 2000 or 2001 model year for about $300K, if you look around.
> --
> Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

EDR

April 26th 04, 10:53 PM

> > In article <1082997048.902464@sj-nntpcache-3>, John Harper
> > > wrote:
> > At this point in just about
> > any plane, Muller-Beggs will work fine (let go of everything and wait).

> "EDR" > wrote in message
> ...
> NOT TRUE!!!
> Go back and re read Gene Beggs' SPORT AEROBATIC articles.In article <1083006290.499387@sj-nntpcache-3>, John Harper > wrote:

> What do you mean, "go back"? I've never read them in the
> first place...

Then what did you base your comment on?
(I have the original three articles.)

John Harper

April 26th 04, 11:25 PM

What I read elsewhere. However I did have the technique
wrong, it seems (after a bit of surfing). I thought you took
your feet off the pedals, and that's not so, just your hands off the
stick. (Before everybody rushes in and says "you terrible
incompetent inept pilot, glad I'm not sharing the airspace
with you, etc etc etc" - I do practice spin recoveries quite
often, but using the "full" technique).

I guess I should try my "modified" M-B technique sometime
in the incipient phase. After all M-B are talking about a fully
developed spin, i.e. after 3 turns, and in the original context
of this thread, if you haven't spotted that something is wrong
after three turns of a spin (and tried to do something about it)
then your piloting skills are probably not your greatest concern.

Trouble is while my head finds spins fascinating, my stomach
feels otherwise, so I never do more than a couple in a single
flight - generally as I'm leaving the practice area, which in turn
is generally because my stomach is already suggesting it's
time to go home.

John

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> > > In article <1082997048.902464@sj-nntpcache-3>, John Harper
> > > > wrote:
> > > At this point in just about
> > > any plane, Muller-Beggs will work fine (let go of everything and
wait).
>
> > "EDR" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > NOT TRUE!!!
> > Go back and re read Gene Beggs' SPORT AEROBATIC articles.In article
<1083006290.499387@sj-nntpcache-3>, John Harper > wrote:
>
> > What do you mean, "go back"? I've never read them in the
> > first place...
>
> Then what did you base your comment on?
> (I have the original three articles.)

G.R. Patterson III

April 27th 04, 12:10 AM

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
> As I thought: nowhere does it say it "cannot recover from a spin without
> pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests". It says "has not been
> demonstrated". There's a subtle but important difference.

Bull. That's no difference at all.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

G.R. Patterson III

April 27th 04, 12:13 AM

John Harper wrote:
>
> At this point in just about
> any plane, Muller-Beggs will work fine (let go of everything and wait).

Try that in a Maule with some load configurations, and you're gonna die.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

Peter Duniho

April 27th 04, 01:12 AM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> > As I thought: nowhere does it say it "cannot recover from a spin without
> > pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests". It says "has not been
> > demonstrated". There's a subtle but important difference.
>
> Bull. That's no difference at all.

Bull? Bull yourself. It's a huge difference.

I have never demonstrated that I am capable of driving a car into a brick
wall. Does that mean that I am actually not capable of driving a car into a
brick wall?

No, of course it doesn't.

Lack of demonstration doesn't not in and of itself imply lack of ability.

Pete

C J Campbell

April 27th 04, 01:28 AM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Lack of demonstration doesn't not in and of itself imply lack of ability.
>

True, but in the case of Cirrus they really did try to spin the airplane. It
used to be on their web site while the airplane was still in development.

G.R. Patterson III

April 27th 04, 02:35 AM

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> Lack of demonstration doesn't not in and of itself imply lack of ability.

You are confusing common usage English with FAA-speak. They were unable to
demonstrate spin recovery because the plane will not recover from a spin. And they
really tried to make it do that.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

Dave Katz

April 27th 04, 04:01 AM

"Dude" > writes:

> This stat does paint with a broad brush, but if all you are looking for is a
> measure of average safety in average usage by average pilots (that fly that
> plane) then the measure is very accurate. Yes, if you compare two models
> that are used by vastly different skill levels or in different types of
> missions, then you may invalidate the data by means of asking the wrong
> question. That is not being done here at all.

But this perverts the nature of statistics. Even very accurate and
valid statistics (with lots of data points, etc.) can never predict
the individual outcome; statistics can only predict the aggregate
outcome. The "average" usage by the "average" pilot does not exist,
and the characteristics of that average cannot even be described, nor
do the statistics predict anything about them. Matter of fact, it is
easy to make the case that the average pilot does *not* scud run in
freezing rain and crash into mountains; it only takes a very small
handful of "special" pilots to skew the statistics.

You cannot even make probabilistic predictions ("I am more likely to
die in a Cirrus than a 182") because the statistics only allow this if
the population is either uniform (like coin flips) or the statistics
can describe the differences between individuals in the population.
The fatalities per 100K statistic is completely worthless for a
quantitative assessment of individual risk. It is meaningful (to some
extent, anyhow) if you are an insurance underwriter, since they deal
in the aggregate, but it only tells them what has been, not what
will be.

> Unless you are one of those people who believes you are above average, then
> it means a lot. What makes one person who buys and flies a Cirrus all that
> different from another? What about comparing them to other brands of new
> airplanes buyers? There is no obvious difference, you will have to propose
> one. This is not a picky little nit type of stat. Saying that Cirrus just
> attracts idiot pilots is not enough, you need say why. I haven't seen a
> good reason yet.

I don't actually think the Cirrus attracts idiot pilots, that was
someone else's statement. I was trying to use it to make a point.

> > The statistics (assuming that they pass significance tests) really
> > tell you only that something is going on, but they can't tell you
> > what. This is a red flag to go and actually examine the accident
> > records and try to make an honest evaluation and decide for yourself
> > what they mean to you.
> >
>
> That would be true, except that examining the records tell us nothing. You
> should rely on the BIG RED FLAG! Seriously. If they had a common thread
> that was fixed, I would grant an exceptional case (aka V tail break ups).
> Until then, no.

Um, the records tell us a lot; the statistic tells us close to nothing
(other than a number.) The records tell us that some of the dead
pilots were scud running in terrible conditions, and if you can
honestly say that you never scud run in terrible conditions, your
personal risk level is much lower than someone who does.

By only looking at the single number, you throw away all of the
information that might help you make an informed risk assessment.

If these planes were mysteriously "falling from the sky" I'd agree
with you, but the failure in most of the cases was squarely in the
left seat.

> My point is that the stat is such a large macro that the idiot factor gets
> rounded out. As an average idiot, we are all more likely to die flying a
> Cirrus, than we are flying a 182. We are all average idiots in this stat.
> It is too big to slice apart that way.

See above. Statistically there is no "average idiot" and
mathematically you cannot make the statement that you as an individual
are more likely to die. If the fatality rates were constant, you
could make the statement that more people were going to die next year
per 100K hours in a Cirrus than in a 182, but you couldn't say
anything about your own risk. Furthermore, the fatality rate in the
Cirrus is plummeting as the fleet grows, so if you want to play the
extrapolation game you could predict that the Cirrus rate will be much
lower this year and thus will magically become more safe than the 182.

> No, all you have to do is set a standard. How much more risk are you
> willing to take on your flight to enjoy the Cirrus over the Cessna? If its
> double, go for it. In my standard, I find the high fatality rate
> unacceptable when compared to the ancient Cessna. It should be better.

That's not the same as saying it's either Safe or Unsafe. Life is unsafe,
and you make your risk assessment and live it. The problem is that we are
generally lousy at risk assessment, and ultimately it's somewhat arbitrary
and almost always rationalized (otherwise we'd never get in a car or take
a shower.) I'm probably less safe in an ancient Cessna than in a Cirrus
(this showed the last time I tried to land one!) Is my risk double in the
Cirrus? I doubt it.

I would like the Cirrus fatality rate to be better than it is (and all
other airplane makes, for that matter.) It's hard to judge whether it
"should" be or not. The trends are that it will be, as the number of
fleet hours is growing much faster than linearly (due to the rapid
rate of delivery) but the fatality rate is not keeping pace.

> Those are all good, but how does that compare with the Cessna which requires
> a very small time of dual instruction for familiarity? Diamond? Lancair?
> Cirrus gets this level of scrutiny by running around BRAGGING about the safe
> design of their plane with a chute. In his interview I recently read, Mr. K
> was all about how great his airfoil is. Also, they get this scrutiny because
> they have high fatalites.

A new glass panel 182 probably takes almost as much time to transition
into safely for serious use (IFR) as does a Cirrus, though the fact
that so many people learned to fly in them helps with the basic
airwork. The Lancair is in the same class as the Cirrus and I would
expect the transition to be at least as difficult (they're also a bit
faster than the comparable Cirri and the outside visibility isn't as
good.)

Cirrus bragging about safety is rather premature and unfortunate, I agree
with you.

> Well, I think the SRV and SR 20 would be better placed in the hands of more
> experienced folk. Since I don't see too many of those folk clamoring for a
> VFR only, glass cockpit, nearly 200k plane, I say they are using it to
> attract low time pilots. I think the days of students buying a Cirrus heve
> been nixxed by the insurers.

It's still happening with SR20s; SR22s are pretty much impossible to
insure as a zero-time student, unless you come with a lot of money and
don't expect to solo for a long time.

> > The SR22 is arguably too much of a handful as a primary trainer,
> > though a few people have done it. The insurance people are the main
> > gatekeepers in this case. The number of low-total-time pilots flying
> > SR22s is probably quite small.
>
> Arguably? Definitely. You may note the 22 is doing better than the 20 in
> the stats. I think this is because, as I have heard from more than one low
> time prospective Cirrus buyer, the plane scares them. The 22 must have
> higher time pilots at the yoke.

Yep, and a lot of people trade up to the SR22 after building SR20 time.

Dave Katz

April 27th 04, 04:30 AM

"G.R. Patterson III" > writes:

> You are confusing common usage English with FAA-speak. They were unable to
> demonstrate spin recovery because the plane will not recover from a spin. And they
> really tried to make it do that.

That's not what the test pilot told me. Where did you get your info?

Tom Sixkiller

April 27th 04, 05:18 AM

"jd-10" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know why you dorks won't face facts:
>
Self-indentification.

>
> I repeat, Cirri are for men with very small penises.
>

Like yourself.

C J Campbell

April 27th 04, 06:17 AM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "jd-10" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I don't know why you dorks won't face facts:
> >
> Self-indentification.
>
> >
> > I repeat, Cirri are for men with very small penises.
> >
>
> Like yourself.
>
>

Nonsense. jd-10 has no penis.

Thomas Borchert

April 27th 04, 08:24 AM

Peter,

Thanks, couldn't have said it that well.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 27th 04, 08:24 AM

G.R.,

> And they
> really tried to make it do that.
>

Proof?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 27th 04, 08:24 AM

Greg,

Again: Using the common method of spin recovery from a one turn
spin on, say, a Bonanza, what's the altitude loss? Less than 920 feet?
Much less? I wouldn't think so.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 27th 04, 08:24 AM

Jd-10,

Ha! I take your Cessnas and add A TAILDRAGGER. Anything else is just
training wheels...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Greg Copeland

April 27th 04, 02:26 PM

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:24:57 +0200, Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Greg,
>
> Again: Using the common method of spin recovery from a one turn
> spin on, say, a Bonanza, what's the altitude loss? Less than 920 feet?
> Much less? I wouldn't think so.

Ya, but I thought we were talking about a Cirrus and not a Bonanza. And,
I think the point remains. If you get into a spin in a Cirrus, the chute
seems to be clearly recommended. To me, that implies that Cirrus has
zero faith that someone in a fully developed spin is going to recover
unless they deploy their chute. Please, feel free to correct.

Another way of looking at this, if you enter a spin slightly higher than
1000 and you start trying a recovery, you may recover in another plane.
If a cirrus, unless you deploy your CAPS WITHOUT TRYING TO RECOVER from
your spin, they seem to imply you won't be around to talk about it. To
me, that's more important than some corner case. It also fails to mention
if "demonstrated...deployment" actually means it has slowed the craft to
safe landing velocities or if that's just the altitude required to get the
chute deployed and dragging air. If it's JUST starting to drag some air,
I think the whole 900ft corner case then becomes a strawman. After all, I
don't think a chute popping 10 feet from the ground is anything to talk
about, if you're wanting to live.

Also, it didn't mention what the minimum demonstrated altitude loss is for
a CAPS deployment from a full spin (3-turn, right??)? Anyone know? Is it
even possible?

Thanks.

Dieter Kleinschmidt

April 27th 04, 03:03 PM

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Edr,
>
>
>>>>>The Cirrus cannot recover
>>>>>from a spin without pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests
>>
>
> As I thought: nowhere does it say it "cannot recover from a spin without
> pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests". It says "has not been
> demonstrated". There's a subtle but important difference.
>
Thomas,

IMHO you are right and wrong. I agree that the SR-[20,22] may be
recoverable from spin. The POH just says that it was not demonstrated
during the certification process ( my guess is they saved time and
money at that point ). In practice you do what the POH says in a
situation like that.

Greetings
Dieter

Dude

April 27th 04, 03:44 PM

Dave,

We may have reached the point where we are going to have to disagree on what
we still disagree on.

I believe that picking apart the record is LESS informative than using the
statistic. Here are my reasons:

1. The records of many planes are simply too long to do this with.
2. For any individual accident, there is usually too much mystery to really
assign a cause.
3. The interpretation process is full of opportunities for prejudice.
4. We all think we are above average.

Saying that no one is an average pilot may be true, but I think that the big
stats like this one are useful for all of us. Nothing can predict the
future, but you have to use what data you have to make a decision. I think
that if you take apart the 182 record, you will find a lot of the same
nonsense behavior as in the Cirrus. The value is that less of them died for
it.

After all, we have limitations. Not being Superman, I still need a plane to
fly. Also, I can't spend my life figuring out why Cirrus pilots are fairing
poorly. If I did, I would not be able to have the money to buy one and the
answer would be moot. I am not going to assume that because I have better
judgement, that those things will not happen to me. I am going to exercise
good judgement by buying the plane with a safer record, and then practice
sound judgement again everytime I fly it.

"Dave Katz" > wrote in message
...
> "Dude" > writes:
>
> > This stat does paint with a broad brush, but if all you are looking for
is a
> > measure of average safety in average usage by average pilots (that fly
that
> > plane) then the measure is very accurate. Yes, if you compare two
models
> > that are used by vastly different skill levels or in different types of
> > missions, then you may invalidate the data by means of asking the wrong
> > question. That is not being done here at all.
>
> But this perverts the nature of statistics. Even very accurate and
> valid statistics (with lots of data points, etc.) can never predict
> the individual outcome; statistics can only predict the aggregate
> outcome. The "average" usage by the "average" pilot does not exist,
> and the characteristics of that average cannot even be described, nor
> do the statistics predict anything about them. Matter of fact, it is
> easy to make the case that the average pilot does *not* scud run in
> freezing rain and crash into mountains; it only takes a very small
> handful of "special" pilots to skew the statistics.
>
> You cannot even make probabilistic predictions ("I am more likely to
> die in a Cirrus than a 182") because the statistics only allow this if
> the population is either uniform (like coin flips) or the statistics
> can describe the differences between individuals in the population.
> The fatalities per 100K statistic is completely worthless for a
> quantitative assessment of individual risk. It is meaningful (to some
> extent, anyhow) if you are an insurance underwriter, since they deal
> in the aggregate, but it only tells them what has been, not what
> will be.
>
> > Unless you are one of those people who believes you are above average,
then
> > it means a lot. What makes one person who buys and flies a Cirrus all
that
> > different from another? What about comparing them to other brands of
new
> > airplanes buyers? There is no obvious difference, you will have to
propose
> > one. This is not a picky little nit type of stat. Saying that Cirrus
just
> > attracts idiot pilots is not enough, you need say why. I haven't seen a
> > good reason yet.
>
> I don't actually think the Cirrus attracts idiot pilots, that was
> someone else's statement. I was trying to use it to make a point.
>
> > > The statistics (assuming that they pass significance tests) really
> > > tell you only that something is going on, but they can't tell you
> > > what. This is a red flag to go and actually examine the accident
> > > records and try to make an honest evaluation and decide for yourself
> > > what they mean to you.
> > >
> >
> > That would be true, except that examining the records tell us nothing.
You
> > should rely on the BIG RED FLAG! Seriously. If they had a common
thread
> > that was fixed, I would grant an exceptional case (aka V tail break
ups).
> > Until then, no.
>
> Um, the records tell us a lot; the statistic tells us close to nothing
> (other than a number.) The records tell us that some of the dead
> pilots were scud running in terrible conditions, and if you can
> honestly say that you never scud run in terrible conditions, your
> personal risk level is much lower than someone who does.
>
> By only looking at the single number, you throw away all of the
> information that might help you make an informed risk assessment.
>
> If these planes were mysteriously "falling from the sky" I'd agree
> with you, but the failure in most of the cases was squarely in the
> left seat.
>
> > My point is that the stat is such a large macro that the idiot factor
gets
> > rounded out. As an average idiot, we are all more likely to die flying
a
> > Cirrus, than we are flying a 182. We are all average idiots in this
stat.
> > It is too big to slice apart that way.
>
> See above. Statistically there is no "average idiot" and
> mathematically you cannot make the statement that you as an individual
> are more likely to die. If the fatality rates were constant, you
> could make the statement that more people were going to die next year
> per 100K hours in a Cirrus than in a 182, but you couldn't say
> anything about your own risk. Furthermore, the fatality rate in the
> Cirrus is plummeting as the fleet grows, so if you want to play the
> extrapolation game you could predict that the Cirrus rate will be much
> lower this year and thus will magically become more safe than the 182.
>
> > No, all you have to do is set a standard. How much more risk are you
> > willing to take on your flight to enjoy the Cirrus over the Cessna? If
its
> > double, go for it. In my standard, I find the high fatality rate
> > unacceptable when compared to the ancient Cessna. It should be better.
>
> That's not the same as saying it's either Safe or Unsafe. Life is unsafe,
> and you make your risk assessment and live it. The problem is that we are
> generally lousy at risk assessment, and ultimately it's somewhat arbitrary
> and almost always rationalized (otherwise we'd never get in a car or take
> a shower.) I'm probably less safe in an ancient Cessna than in a Cirrus
> (this showed the last time I tried to land one!) Is my risk double in the
> Cirrus? I doubt it.
>
> I would like the Cirrus fatality rate to be better than it is (and all
> other airplane makes, for that matter.) It's hard to judge whether it
> "should" be or not. The trends are that it will be, as the number of
> fleet hours is growing much faster than linearly (due to the rapid
> rate of delivery) but the fatality rate is not keeping pace.
>
> > Those are all good, but how does that compare with the Cessna which
requires
> > a very small time of dual instruction for familiarity? Diamond?
Lancair?
> > Cirrus gets this level of scrutiny by running around BRAGGING about the
safe
> > design of their plane with a chute. In his interview I recently read,
Mr. K
> > was all about how great his airfoil is. Also, they get this scrutiny
because
> > they have high fatalites.
>
> A new glass panel 182 probably takes almost as much time to transition
> into safely for serious use (IFR) as does a Cirrus, though the fact
> that so many people learned to fly in them helps with the basic
> airwork. The Lancair is in the same class as the Cirrus and I would
> expect the transition to be at least as difficult (they're also a bit
> faster than the comparable Cirri and the outside visibility isn't as
> good.)
>
> Cirrus bragging about safety is rather premature and unfortunate, I agree
> with you.
>
> > Well, I think the SRV and SR 20 would be better placed in the hands of
more
> > experienced folk. Since I don't see too many of those folk clamoring
for a
> > VFR only, glass cockpit, nearly 200k plane, I say they are using it to
> > attract low time pilots. I think the days of students buying a Cirrus
heve
> > been nixxed by the insurers.
>
> It's still happening with SR20s; SR22s are pretty much impossible to
> insure as a zero-time student, unless you come with a lot of money and
> don't expect to solo for a long time.
>
> > > The SR22 is arguably too much of a handful as a primary trainer,
> > > though a few people have done it. The insurance people are the main
> > > gatekeepers in this case. The number of low-total-time pilots flying
> > > SR22s is probably quite small.
> >
> > Arguably? Definitely. You may note the 22 is doing better than the 20
in
> > the stats. I think this is because, as I have heard from more than one
low
> > time prospective Cirrus buyer, the plane scares them. The 22 must have
> > higher time pilots at the yoke.
>
> Yep, and a lot of people trade up to the SR22 after building SR20 time.

Dude

April 27th 04, 03:56 PM

Are you a COPA member Peter?

I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all the
bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and then
you let anyone buy a membership). The root of the problem is suspected to
be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend. They give the reason
for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power
sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them.

I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus prop
controls as FADEC or even FADEC like. However, they have commented on how
"simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot. The unintended
consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the engine
and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more
problematic.

Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If your
level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you
should not log on. Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest you
do the same.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The combination
> will
> > slow my plane
>
> Reducing throttle in a Cirrus slows the plane down too.
>
> > without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an
> > argument about shock cooling.
>
> Then stop making statements that rely on the assumption that shock cooling
> exists.
>
> > Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not
> > change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it.
>
> So what? First of all, your assumption that high RPM, low throttle power
> settings avoid shock cooling is simply wrong. If there is such a thing as
> shock cooling, then reducing power will cause shock cooling, regardless of
> what mix of RPM and MP you use. Additionally, at low throttle, high RPM
> settings, the engine is windmilling, being driven by the airflow through
the
> prop, and is considered by many to be at least as damaging to an engine as
> shock cooling, if not more so.
>
> Secondly, the fact that "many pilots" fly in a way to try to avoid
something
> that does not happen isn't relevant to any rational discussion. Why would
> an aircraft designer install speed brakes just to address some
psychological
> need for a pilot to use them, even if there is no practical advantage to
> doing so?
>
> In other words, if you want to play the "avoid shock cooling card", you'd
> better darn well be prepared to argue that "shock cooling" is real.
>
> > The Cirrus does
> > not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec)
>
> It's not a FADEC. It's not advertised as a FADEC. It cannot possibly be
a
> "phony fadec [sic]", since no one's called it a FADEC in the first place.
>
> > Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot frigging
> > louder than the ones that think it works just fine.
>
> I haven't seen any evidence to even buttress that statement. But even if
> it's true, how's that anything other than basic human nature? Why would
> someone for whom everything's going fine invest a huge effort complaining
> about that? Who do you expect to hear from, if not from the few folks who
> have had engine problems?
>
> Pete
>
>

Dude

April 27th 04, 04:00 PM

And it better have a radial engine, wood spar, fabric covering, and not a
single working instrument except the engine gages (real men take care of the
engine first, last, and always!).

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Jd-10,
>
> Ha! I take your Cessnas and add A TAILDRAGGER. Anything else is just
> training wheels...
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Aaron Coolidge

April 27th 04, 04:58 PM

John Harper > wrote:
: Won't carry 4 people (with useful fuel) though. The new
: Mooneys are wonderful planes but if you even occasionally
: need to carry four people then they don't work out. Shame,
: because the recent Bravo is a really lovely plane to
: fly.

I beg to differ, here. With 60 Gal of fuel, you have 700 Lbs of useful
load left. 60 gal gets you ~500 nm with a 1 hour reserve. (This is in the
Ovation2 that I borrowed a couple months ago. Your mileage may vary.)

If you fill it up to 90 gal of fuel, yes, it's a 2 place + luggage plane.
You have 5 hours of range (~850 nm), with a 1 hour reserve.

According to the Cirrus web site, useful load of an SR22 is 1150 lbs (about
the same as the Ovation2). Fuel capacity is 81 gal. 1150 - (81 * 6) = 664
lbs useful load with full fuel. This gives ~670 nm range with a 1 hour
reserve, assuming 17 GPH. (I don't know how Cirrus gets a 1000 nm range,
that would imply 14.5 GPH to dry tanks, which would imply about 60% power.)

I would say that the two airplanes are very comparable in terms of power,
speed, range, price, payload flexability, etc.
--
Aaron Coolidge

Mike Murdock

April 27th 04, 05:04 PM

I tried flying other planes, but only the Cirrus had enough room for the
cooler full of quiche, and the Martha Stewart cookware I use to warm it up.
A thermos full of latte' and you're good to go, girlfriend.

-Mike

"jd-10" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know why you dorks won't face facts:
>
> A Cirrus is for a pilot with a very small penis. No real man would be
> caught dead in that Lexus-looking POS. "d00d, it's lie having a 'vette,
> man."
>
> PUSSIES!
>
> In fact, men with large penises ONLY fly single-engine Cessnas. They are
> the finest example of great airplane design in the world. They can take
> you where a Cirrus would BREAK UP ON LANDING!
>
> Real men don't need a ballistic parachute either. If you **** up, shut
> up and die like an aviator.
>
> I repeat, Cirri are for men with very small penises.
>
> That is all.
> --
> JD-10

Thomas Borchert

April 27th 04, 05:28 PM

Greg,

> Ya, but I thought we were talking about a Cirrus and not a Bonanza. And,
> I think the point remains.
>

We were comparing the Cirrus to "conventional" aircraft, and some were
implying the older ones were no problem to recover at altitudes below 910
feet, while the Cirrus would be a problem. Turns out that the 910 feet are
needed to recover from a one-turn spin (as certification requires) for the
Cirrus. Well, I doubt you'd get away with much less in any comparable
aircraft, e.g. the Bonanza. And in that case, that point does NOT remain.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 27th 04, 05:28 PM

Dude,

> real men take care of the
> engine first, last, and always!)
>

REAL MEN flap their arms to fly.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter Duniho

April 27th 04, 05:47 PM

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Are you a COPA member Peter?

No, why should I be?

> I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all
the
> bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and then
> you let anyone buy a membership).

By whom? People who have done extensive testing and actually know? Or one
or two irate owners who have had unusual problems with their airplanes? If
you have the posts, make them publicly available.

> The root of the problem is suspected to
> be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend.

Suspected by whom? Anyone who ought to know? Or random armchair mechanics
like those of posting to this thread?

> They give the reason
> for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power
> sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them.

I've flown the SR20. I had no trouble at all using partial power reductions
to slow the airplane.

> I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus prop
> controls as FADEC or even FADEC like.

Then why do you keep writing "phony FADEC"? Sure looks like a claim to me.

> However, they have commented on how
> "simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot.

It *is* simple.

> The unintended
> consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the
engine
> and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more
> problematic.

What "sweet spot"? A reduction in power is a reduction in power. Less
power means less thrust which means less speed. There's absolutely no
reason for vertical planning to be "more problematic", no more so than all
the other low-drag airframes out there that also don't have speed brakes.
Nothing about the engine control is relevant here.

> Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If your
> level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you
> should not log on.

Log on to what?

> Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest you
> do the same.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You show up here spouting all
sorts of nonsense about how the Cirrus airplanes need speed brakes, and then
you accuse me of having my "level of positive thinking and optimism"
bothered? All I'm doing is pointing out how stupid your claims are. I'm
not bothered at all.

Pete

Vaughn Simon

April 27th 04, 06:12 PM

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote
> > Therefore, the Cirrus cannot
> > recover from a spin when below 900' AGL. Many other aircraft can.
>
> Name one aircraft that can cruise better than 170 kts, carry four
> people, and can recover from a spin at 900 AGL.

The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL if
all goes well, and I honestly feel that that is a great thing, but not the
same as "recovering" from the spin. The airplane will be bent, probably off
the field (possibly in a schoolyard, or the middle of an interstate, or...)
and there may well be injuries, inside and outside the plane.

Vaughn

>
> Michael

John Harper

April 27th 04, 07:19 PM

I was really thinking of the Bravo, which is a bit heavier
than the Ovation (obviously). "Guideline" useful load
for the Bravo seems to be around 950-1000 but I've
seen them on ASO etc in the 850-900 range by the
time they get TKS and fancy avionics. So with 60 gals
that gets you to around 500 lbs, not even 3 normal people with
some baggage.

John

"Aaron Coolidge" > wrote in message
...
> John Harper > wrote:
> : Won't carry 4 people (with useful fuel) though. The new
> : Mooneys are wonderful planes but if you even occasionally
> : need to carry four people then they don't work out. Shame,
> : because the recent Bravo is a really lovely plane to
> : fly.
>
> I beg to differ, here. With 60 Gal of fuel, you have 700 Lbs of useful
> load left. 60 gal gets you ~500 nm with a 1 hour reserve. (This is in the
> Ovation2 that I borrowed a couple months ago. Your mileage may vary.)
>
> If you fill it up to 90 gal of fuel, yes, it's a 2 place + luggage plane.
> You have 5 hours of range (~850 nm), with a 1 hour reserve.
>
> According to the Cirrus web site, useful load of an SR22 is 1150 lbs
(about
> the same as the Ovation2). Fuel capacity is 81 gal. 1150 - (81 * 6) = 664
> lbs useful load with full fuel. This gives ~670 nm range with a 1 hour
> reserve, assuming 17 GPH. (I don't know how Cirrus gets a 1000 nm range,
> that would imply 14.5 GPH to dry tanks, which would imply about 60%
power.)
>
> I would say that the two airplanes are very comparable in terms of power,
> speed, range, price, payload flexability, etc.
> --
> Aaron Coolidge

TTA Cherokee Driver

April 27th 04, 07:52 PM

LOL! That's the best possible response to that post.

Mike Murdock wrote:

> I tried flying other planes, but only the Cirrus had enough room for the
> cooler full of quiche, and the Martha Stewart cookware I use to warm it up.
> A thermos full of latte' and you're good to go, girlfriend.
>
> -Mike
>
> "jd-10" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I don't know why you dorks won't face facts:
>>
>>A Cirrus is for a pilot with a very small penis. No real man would be
>>caught dead in that Lexus-looking POS. "d00d, it's lie having a 'vette,
>>man."
>>
>>PUSSIES!
>>
>>In fact, men with large penises ONLY fly single-engine Cessnas. They are
>>the finest example of great airplane design in the world. They can take
>>you where a Cirrus would BREAK UP ON LANDING!
>>
>>Real men don't need a ballistic parachute either. If you **** up, shut
>>up and die like an aviator.
>>
>>I repeat, Cirri are for men with very small penises.
>>
>>That is all.
>>--
>>JD-10
>
>
>

Dude

April 27th 04, 08:47 PM

I bet the G1000 helps out the new Mooney's with weight. Anyone compared to
see how much less it weighs than a full stack?

"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1083090163.753660@sj-nntpcache-3...
> I was really thinking of the Bravo, which is a bit heavier
> than the Ovation (obviously). "Guideline" useful load
> for the Bravo seems to be around 950-1000 but I've
> seen them on ASO etc in the 850-900 range by the
> time they get TKS and fancy avionics. So with 60 gals
> that gets you to around 500 lbs, not even 3 normal people with
> some baggage.
>
> John
>
> "Aaron Coolidge" > wrote in message
> ...
> > John Harper > wrote:
> > : Won't carry 4 people (with useful fuel) though. The new
> > : Mooneys are wonderful planes but if you even occasionally
> > : need to carry four people then they don't work out. Shame,
> > : because the recent Bravo is a really lovely plane to
> > : fly.
> >
> > I beg to differ, here. With 60 Gal of fuel, you have 700 Lbs of useful
> > load left. 60 gal gets you ~500 nm with a 1 hour reserve. (This is in
the
> > Ovation2 that I borrowed a couple months ago. Your mileage may vary.)
> >
> > If you fill it up to 90 gal of fuel, yes, it's a 2 place + luggage
plane.
> > You have 5 hours of range (~850 nm), with a 1 hour reserve.
> >
> > According to the Cirrus web site, useful load of an SR22 is 1150 lbs
> (about
> > the same as the Ovation2). Fuel capacity is 81 gal. 1150 - (81 * 6) =
664
> > lbs useful load with full fuel. This gives ~670 nm range with a 1 hour
> > reserve, assuming 17 GPH. (I don't know how Cirrus gets a 1000 nm range,
> > that would imply 14.5 GPH to dry tanks, which would imply about 60%
> power.)
> >
> > I would say that the two airplanes are very comparable in terms of
power,
> > speed, range, price, payload flexability, etc.
> > --
> > Aaron Coolidge
>
>

Dude

April 27th 04, 08:51 PM

ignore

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Are you a COPA member Peter?
>
> No, why should I be?
>
> > I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all
> the
> > bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and
then
> > you let anyone buy a membership).
>
> By whom? People who have done extensive testing and actually know? Or
one
> or two irate owners who have had unusual problems with their airplanes?
If
> you have the posts, make them publicly available.
>
> > The root of the problem is suspected to
> > be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend.
>
> Suspected by whom? Anyone who ought to know? Or random armchair
mechanics
> like those of posting to this thread?
>
> > They give the reason
> > for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power
> > sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them.
>
> I've flown the SR20. I had no trouble at all using partial power
reductions
> to slow the airplane.
>
> > I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus
prop
> > controls as FADEC or even FADEC like.
>
> Then why do you keep writing "phony FADEC"? Sure looks like a claim to
me.
>
> > However, they have commented on how
> > "simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot.
>
> It *is* simple.
>
> > The unintended
> > consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the
> engine
> > and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more
> > problematic.
>
> What "sweet spot"? A reduction in power is a reduction in power. Less
> power means less thrust which means less speed. There's absolutely no
> reason for vertical planning to be "more problematic", no more so than all
> the other low-drag airframes out there that also don't have speed brakes.
> Nothing about the engine control is relevant here.
>
> > Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If
your
> > level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you
> > should not log on.
>
> Log on to what?
>
> > Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest you
> > do the same.
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about. You show up here spouting all
> sorts of nonsense about how the Cirrus airplanes need speed brakes, and
then
> you accuse me of having my "level of positive thinking and optimism"
> bothered? All I'm doing is pointing out how stupid your claims are. I'm
> not bothered at all.
>
> Pete
>
>

Dan Luke

April 27th 04, 08:55 PM

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
>They were unable to demonstrate spin recovery because
> the plane will not recover from a spin. And they
> really tried to make it do that.

I sure would like to see some definitive cites on this question, because
I have "heard" quite a different story: that the Cirrus requires some
extraodinary control inputs to force it to spin, but it will, and
factory pilots have recovered without pulling the 'chute.

Anybody have any reliable references to testimony on this subject?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Greg Copeland

April 27th 04, 09:00 PM

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:28:36 +0200, Thomas Borchert wrote:

> aircraft, e.g. the Bonanza. And in that case, that point does NOT remain.

Yes, yes. I read the thread. I guess I don't understand why the point
doesn't remain and why the rest of my post was ignored. Did I not explain
my self very well? Especially in light of the fact that I asked questions
which, in my mind, directly relate to the validity of the comparison.
Furthermore, I offered that it's a corner case that really doesn't matter.
Especially if I'm right about CAPS, as explained.

Mike Murdock

April 27th 04, 10:23 PM

Dude,

I am a COPA member, and I read the members forum regularly, and I don't
remember seeing anything about premature cylinder failure. However, since
there are over 50,000 posts there, I'm willing to admit that I might have
missed one or two :)

Do you still have the COPA posts you were forwarded? If you can give me the
date they were posted, or the name of the person who posted them, or any
unique keywords from the post, I'd be happy to look them up and post a
synopsis here. I've already searched for "shock cooling" without finding
the posts you mentioned.

I'm sincerely interested since I own an SR22, and if the engine is going to
go Tango Uniform at 700 hours, I'd like to know. I do know that several
have flown past that mark with no problem, although the sample size is still
small since the fleet is still young.

Thanks,

-Mike

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Are you a COPA member Peter?
>
> I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all
the
> bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and then
> you let anyone buy a membership). The root of the problem is suspected to
> be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend. They give the reason
> for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power
> sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them.
>
> I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus prop
> controls as FADEC or even FADEC like. However, they have commented on how
> "simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot. The unintended
> consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the
engine
> and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more
> problematic.
>
> Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If your
> level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you
> should not log on. Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest you
> do the same.
>
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dude" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The
combination
> > will
> > > slow my plane
> >
> > Reducing throttle in a Cirrus slows the plane down too.
> >
> > > without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an
> > > argument about shock cooling.
> >
> > Then stop making statements that rely on the assumption that shock
cooling
> > exists.
> >
> > > Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not
> > > change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it.
> >
> > So what? First of all, your assumption that high RPM, low throttle
power
> > settings avoid shock cooling is simply wrong. If there is such a thing
as
> > shock cooling, then reducing power will cause shock cooling, regardless
of
> > what mix of RPM and MP you use. Additionally, at low throttle, high RPM
> > settings, the engine is windmilling, being driven by the airflow through
> the
> > prop, and is considered by many to be at least as damaging to an engine
as
> > shock cooling, if not more so.
> >
> > Secondly, the fact that "many pilots" fly in a way to try to avoid
> something
> > that does not happen isn't relevant to any rational discussion. Why
would
> > an aircraft designer install speed brakes just to address some
> psychological
> > need for a pilot to use them, even if there is no practical advantage to
> > doing so?
> >
> > In other words, if you want to play the "avoid shock cooling card",
you'd
> > better darn well be prepared to argue that "shock cooling" is real.
> >
> > > The Cirrus does
> > > not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec)
> >
> > It's not a FADEC. It's not advertised as a FADEC. It cannot possibly
be
> a
> > "phony fadec [sic]", since no one's called it a FADEC in the first
place.
> >
> > > Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot frigging
> > > louder than the ones that think it works just fine.
> >
> > I haven't seen any evidence to even buttress that statement. But even
if
> > it's true, how's that anything other than basic human nature? Why would
> > someone for whom everything's going fine invest a huge effort
complaining
> > about that? Who do you expect to hear from, if not from the few folks
who
> > have had engine problems?
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
>
>

C J Campbell

April 28th 04, 02:58 AM

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote
> > > Therefore, the Cirrus cannot
> > > recover from a spin when below 900' AGL. Many other aircraft can.
> >
> > Name one aircraft that can cruise better than 170 kts, carry four
> > people, and can recover from a spin at 900 AGL.
>
> The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL

How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs
more than 900 feet to deploy?

Peter Duniho

April 28th 04, 03:01 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> > The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL
>
> How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs
> more than 900 feet to deploy?

They have the same hope any occupant of any similar aircraft has of
surviving a spin from 900' AGL.

The parachute is an irrelevant red herring in this particular example.

Pete

Greg Copeland

April 28th 04, 03:13 AM

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:58:11 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

>
> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
>> The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL
>
> How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs
> more than 900 feet to deploy?

Ya, that's the point I brought up in another subthread here, which went
unanswered. Maybe you can help.

If the deployment requires 920, does that mean after 920 you can safely
touchdown or does that mean it requires 920 + however long it takes to
slow your velocity to proper touchdown velocity? I ask because, I don't
think a chute opening 10 AGL is going to help much.

Fred Wolf

April 28th 04, 04:11 AM

I see so many Bonanzas with newly rebuilt engines at lower than 700 hrs, it
makes my head spin

so much bull**** on this site

"Mike Murdock" > wrote in message
...
> Dude,
>
> I am a COPA member, and I read the members forum regularly, and I don't
> remember seeing anything about premature cylinder failure. However, since
> there are over 50,000 posts there, I'm willing to admit that I might have
> missed one or two :)
>
> Do you still have the COPA posts you were forwarded? If you can give me
the
> date they were posted, or the name of the person who posted them, or any
> unique keywords from the post, I'd be happy to look them up and post a
> synopsis here. I've already searched for "shock cooling" without finding
> the posts you mentioned.
>
> I'm sincerely interested since I own an SR22, and if the engine is going
to
> go Tango Uniform at 700 hours, I'd like to know. I do know that several
> have flown past that mark with no problem, although the sample size is
still
> small since the fleet is still young.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Mike
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Are you a COPA member Peter?
> >
> > I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all
> the
> > bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and
then
> > you let anyone buy a membership). The root of the problem is suspected
to
> > be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend. They give the
reason
> > for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power
> > sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them.
> >
> > I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus
prop
> > controls as FADEC or even FADEC like. However, they have commented on
how
> > "simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot. The unintended
> > consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the
> engine
> > and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more
> > problematic.
> >
> > Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If
your
> > level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you
> > should not log on. Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest
you
> > do the same.
> >
> >
> > "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Dude" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The
> combination
> > > will
> > > > slow my plane
> > >
> > > Reducing throttle in a Cirrus slows the plane down too.
> > >
> > > > without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an
> > > > argument about shock cooling.
> > >
> > > Then stop making statements that rely on the assumption that shock
> cooling
> > > exists.
> > >
> > > > Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not
> > > > change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it.
> > >
> > > So what? First of all, your assumption that high RPM, low throttle
> power
> > > settings avoid shock cooling is simply wrong. If there is such a
thing
> as
> > > shock cooling, then reducing power will cause shock cooling,
regardless
> of
> > > what mix of RPM and MP you use. Additionally, at low throttle, high
RPM
> > > settings, the engine is windmilling, being driven by the airflow
through
> > the
> > > prop, and is considered by many to be at least as damaging to an
engine
> as
> > > shock cooling, if not more so.
> > >
> > > Secondly, the fact that "many pilots" fly in a way to try to avoid
> > something
> > > that does not happen isn't relevant to any rational discussion. Why
> would
> > > an aircraft designer install speed brakes just to address some
> > psychological
> > > need for a pilot to use them, even if there is no practical advantage
to
> > > doing so?
> > >
> > > In other words, if you want to play the "avoid shock cooling card",
> you'd
> > > better darn well be prepared to argue that "shock cooling" is real.
> > >
> > > > The Cirrus does
> > > > not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec)
> > >
> > > It's not a FADEC. It's not advertised as a FADEC. It cannot possibly
> be
> > a
> > > "phony fadec [sic]", since no one's called it a FADEC in the first
> place.
> > >
> > > > Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot
frigging
> > > > louder than the ones that think it works just fine.
> > >
> > > I haven't seen any evidence to even buttress that statement. But even
> if
> > > it's true, how's that anything other than basic human nature? Why
would
> > > someone for whom everything's going fine invest a huge effort
> complaining
> > > about that? Who do you expect to hear from, if not from the few folks
> who
> > > have had engine problems?
> > >
> > > Pete
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Dave Stadt

April 28th 04, 04:39 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "C J Campbell" > wrote
> > > > Therefore, the Cirrus cannot
> > > > recover from a spin when below 900' AGL. Many other aircraft can.
> > >
> > > Name one aircraft that can cruise better than 170 kts, carry four
> > > people, and can recover from a spin at 900 AGL.
> >
> > The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL
>
> How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs
> more than 900 feet to deploy?

Not to mention reaction time which would add hundreds of feet to the
equation.

C J Campbell

April 28th 04, 07:38 AM

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:58:11 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
>
> >
> > "Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
> >> The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900
AGL
> >
> > How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs
> > more than 900 feet to deploy?
>
> Ya, that's the point I brought up in another subthread here, which went
> unanswered. Maybe you can help.
>
> If the deployment requires 920, does that mean after 920 you can safely
> touchdown or does that mean it requires 920 + however long it takes to
> slow your velocity to proper touchdown velocity? I ask because, I don't
> think a chute opening 10 AGL is going to help much.

I believe the POH says that is the altitude necessary to safely touch down.
Whether it could be of any help before that I don't know. Even partially
opened the parachute is going to add some drag, but what happens is that the
parachute is pulled out by a rocket. Instead of opening instantly (which
would destroy the chute) a Teflon coated ring slides down the shroud lines
to allow the chute to open in a controlled manner. The airplane continues
moving forward during all this process. Once the chute is opened, the
airplane swings down under the canopy. So dropping that last few feet just
as the parachute opens the airplane's rate of descent might not be slowed at
all.

All of that assumes that the airplane is in normal forward flight. The
Cirrus spins in a flat attitude and it might not have all that much forward
motion. I guess the actual altitude needed would vary some depending on just
what the airplane is doing at the time the CAPS system is deployed.

Vaughn

April 28th 04, 11:29 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL
>
> How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs
> more than 900 feet to deploy?

OK, perhaps it is 920 feet; my point was that use of the BRS to "survive" a
spin is hardly the same as "recovering" from a spin as we have always understood
it. After a normal spin recovery in a normal airplane, there is typically no
reason to ring up the insurance company.

To respond to another point, the minimum BRS recovery altitude would also
depend somewhat on density altitude. For example; given the same low AGL, you
might not get the same happy results in Denver that you previously got in Miami.

Vaughn

>
>

Greg Copeland

April 28th 04, 02:28 PM

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:39:20 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:

>
> Not to mention reaction time which would add hundreds of feet to the
> equation.

And that assumes you didn't waste time trying to recover in the first
place.

Bill Denton

April 28th 04, 02:49 PM

So now we come back to some of the points I made early on in this thread...

One of the problems is getting the pilot to absolutely ignore both human
nature and his training and immediately deploy the BRS with no attempt at
recovery from the spin.

Because if the pilot doesn't follow this procedure, no questions asked, the
delay resulting from going through a recovery process and the associated
thought processes may well put the pilot below the effective altitude of the
BRS.

You're working against both existing training and instincts, and
Cirrus-specific training that simply tells a pilot about the specific
characteristics of the airplane is useless. The training needs to absolutely
pound these differences into the pilot's head. And until that type of
training is done the Cirrus will continue to have a less-than-stellar
accident record...

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:39:20 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> >
> > Not to mention reaction time which would add hundreds of feet to the
> > equation.
>
> And that assumes you didn't waste time trying to recover in the first
> place.
>

Dude

April 28th 04, 03:28 PM

I will look for the dates for you.

I do not recall the words "cylinder failure" anywhere, just that there was
major engine work, top overhauls, and fears of needing rebuilds in the near
future.

I see someone
"Mike Murdock" > wrote in message
...
> Dude,
>
> I am a COPA member, and I read the members forum regularly, and I don't
> remember seeing anything about premature cylinder failure. However, since
> there are over 50,000 posts there, I'm willing to admit that I might have
> missed one or two :)
>
> Do you still have the COPA posts you were forwarded? If you can give me
the
> date they were posted, or the name of the person who posted them, or any
> unique keywords from the post, I'd be happy to look them up and post a
> synopsis here. I've already searched for "shock cooling" without finding
> the posts you mentioned.
>
> I'm sincerely interested since I own an SR22, and if the engine is going
to
> go Tango Uniform at 700 hours, I'd like to know. I do know that several
> have flown past that mark with no problem, although the sample size is
still
> small since the fleet is still young.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Mike
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Are you a COPA member Peter?
> >
> > I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all
> the
> > bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and
then
> > you let anyone buy a membership). The root of the problem is suspected
to
> > be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend. They give the
reason
> > for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power
> > sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them.
> >
> > I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus
prop
> > controls as FADEC or even FADEC like. However, they have commented on
how
> > "simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot. The unintended
> > consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the
> engine
> > and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more
> > problematic.
> >
> > Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If
your
> > level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you
> > should not log on. Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest
you
> > do the same.
> >
> >
> > "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Dude" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The
> combination
> > > will
> > > > slow my plane
> > >
> > > Reducing throttle in a Cirrus slows the plane down too.
> > >
> > > > without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an
> > > > argument about shock cooling.
> > >
> > > Then stop making statements that rely on the assumption that shock
> cooling
> > > exists.
> > >
> > > > Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not
> > > > change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it.
> > >
> > > So what? First of all, your assumption that high RPM, low throttle
> power
> > > settings avoid shock cooling is simply wrong. If there is such a
thing
> as
> > > shock cooling, then reducing power will cause shock cooling,
regardless
> of
> > > what mix of RPM and MP you use. Additionally, at low throttle, high
RPM
> > > settings, the engine is windmilling, being driven by the airflow
through
> > the
> > > prop, and is considered by many to be at least as damaging to an
engine
> as
> > > shock cooling, if not more so.
> > >
> > > Secondly, the fact that "many pilots" fly in a way to try to avoid
> > something
> > > that does not happen isn't relevant to any rational discussion. Why
> would
> > > an aircraft designer install speed brakes just to address some
> > psychological
> > > need for a pilot to use them, even if there is no practical advantage
to
> > > doing so?
> > >
> > > In other words, if you want to play the "avoid shock cooling card",
> you'd
> > > better darn well be prepared to argue that "shock cooling" is real.
> > >
> > > > The Cirrus does
> > > > not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec)
> > >
> > > It's not a FADEC. It's not advertised as a FADEC. It cannot possibly
> be
> > a
> > > "phony fadec [sic]", since no one's called it a FADEC in the first
> place.
> > >
> > > > Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot
frigging
> > > > louder than the ones that think it works just fine.
> > >
> > > I haven't seen any evidence to even buttress that statement. But even
> if
> > > it's true, how's that anything other than basic human nature? Why
would
> > > someone for whom everything's going fine invest a huge effort
> complaining
> > > about that? Who do you expect to hear from, if not from the few folks
> who
> > > have had engine problems?
> > >
> > > Pete
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Vaughn Simon

April 28th 04, 05:11 PM

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> So now we come back to some of the points I made early on in this
thread...
>
> One of the problems is getting the pilot to absolutely ignore both human
> nature and his training and immediately deploy the BRS with no attempt at
> recovery from the spin. <snip>...And until that type of
> training is done the Cirrus will continue to have a less-than-stellar
> accident record...

And to come back to a point I made earlier in the thread, the result of
pulling the BRS *is* an accident. You will end up with bent metal and
possibly injuries every time you deploy the rescue system, and this reality
will be reflected in the Cirrus's insurance rates. Hopefully, the Cirrus
will some day have a low fatality rate, but I doubt if it will ever be known
for a low accident rate.

Vaughn

Richard Kaplan

April 28th 04, 05:20 PM

"Aaron Coolidge" > wrote in message
...

> I would say that the two airplanes are very comparable in terms of power,
> speed, range, price, payload flexability, etc.

A huge difference is that the Mooney can be equipped to be known-ice
certified.

For anyone spending $300K on a serious IFR airplane, it is hard for me to
imagine how/why this is not a dealbreaker for Cirrus.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Dave Stadt

April 28th 04, 10:47 PM

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> So now we come back to some of the points I made early on in this
thread...
>
> One of the problems is getting the pilot to absolutely ignore both human
> nature and his training and immediately deploy the BRS with no attempt at
> recovery from the spin.
>
> Because if the pilot doesn't follow this procedure, no questions asked,
the
> delay resulting from going through a recovery process and the associated
> thought processes may well put the pilot below the effective altitude of
the
> BRS.
>
> You're working against both existing training and instincts, and
> Cirrus-specific training that simply tells a pilot about the specific
> characteristics of the airplane is useless. The training needs to
absolutely
> pound these differences into the pilot's head. And until that type of
> training is done the Cirrus will continue to have a less-than-stellar
> accident record...

Can you imagine what a pilot that flies a Cirrus and other planes would do
in a crisis situation. Two totally different emergency procedures would vie
for top priority. Scary.

Greg

May 5th 04, 04:28 AM

"Dude" person,
I have really been reluctant to add a post to this thread because I
don't think I have seen so much misinformation in my life, but I feel
an obligation to correct patently false statements which I can refute
from a position of knowledge. I have been flying an SR22 for 2 1/2
years and have been a COPA member for 3 years.

You said that there are problems with the engines needing work at 700
hours. This is absolutely false. If this were happening, it would be
all over the COPA forums and I read them almost everyday. I have not
read the first report of an engine needing major work at 700 hours and
your statement about the interconnection between the prop and throttle
being problematic to the engine is so ridiculous as to be humorous. I
also have a very good relationship with my Service Center and we have
had a lot of conversations about various Cirrus issues, major engine
work at 700 hours has never been mentioned. And shock cooling
problems??!! Huh? I have never had this problem even once.

As far as slowing the plane down, I have never had a problem with THAT
either. I have had to start slowing down a little sooner BECAUSE I
WAS GOING FASTER TO START WITH! I have flown an ILS down to the
middle marker at 120kts (faster than the cruise speed of a 172) and
dropped flaps to land in the normal touchdown zone. It's just not a
problem and I have never wished I had speed brakes. By the way, THAT
is the correct way to spell "speed brakes".

And ANOTHER thing, if anybody thinks they are going to recover from an
inadvertent spin in less than 1,000' in any common four place or six
place airplane without hitting terra firma first, they are living a
fantasy. You just might barely make it if you are well practiced in
spins in the aircraft you are flying and perform spins on a regular
basis and you are at a very light weight. However, it will not happen
like that. It will happen unexpectedly, probably when you are heavy
with an aft CG, while you are doing something else like changing to
departure control frequency. You look up from the radio to see the
world spinning. You have less than five seconds to figure out what
happened and determine the correct control inputs. You must execute
them perfectly, or you die. Depending on the plane, loading, and
pilot proficiency in spin recovery, I would not expect many scenarios
like this to end favorably with less than 2,000' for an average pilot.

Geez, this thread has the worst signal to noise ratio I have seen in a
long time. You know, it started out with just some guy asking for a
little information, I don't think he wanted an earful of crap from
someone with an agenda. Until you fly a Cirrus for more than a
demonstration flight, you would do well to stick to verifiable facts.

Greg

"Dude" > wrote in message >...
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dude,
> >
> > > This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach.
> >
> > Oh? So how many have stalled on approach again? Right, none.
>
> Yet.
>
> Don't get so frigging defensive. My point is that the Cirrus can be hard to
> slow to approach speed. It takes more care than many other planes because
> it is slick, and you cannot control the pitch of the prop to add drag. If
> you had speed breaks you would allow the pilot more options to control
> descent given that right now the system that governs the RPM/MP has limited
> ability to slow the plane without cutting the throttle.
>
> Bottom line is that if a person has speed breaks, he is less likely to fly
> slow because he can shed speed whenever needed.
>
> >
> > > It would also reduce
> > > the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control
> system.
> > >
> >
> > So you can prove damage through shock cooling? Wow! I know no one else who
> > can. And where is the connection to the "engine control system"?
> >
>
> Presently, according to some COPA members, there are many people having
> excessive engine wear and needing lots of cylinder work early. One
> suspected reason is shock cooling due to pilots cutting throttle to get the
> plane down without gaining too much speed. The cirrus design simply adds
> more penalty to poor vertical planning than most planes, and so the engine
> is often asked to pay the price.
>
> Another theory is that the engines are constanlty being run at set rpm's
> that may not be the best rpm's or the smoothest. The pilot cannot control
> it.
>
> Bottom line, the phony Fadec system isn't really all that good.
>
>
> > --
> > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> >

Dude

May 5th 04, 10:15 PM

Greg,

Sorry if I am calling your baby ugly, but...

I get information from lots of different pilots. That means that I may end
up spreading some bad poop, but I am open to being refuted.

The information you are disagreeing with mostly comes from a very
experienced pilot who is a COPA member, but does not own a Cirrus. I have
no reason to suspect his lack of objectivity or that he has an axe to grind.
He is very knowledgeable.

I know someone who recently aquired an SR 22 on brokerage, so perhaps I will
be able to get a better experience with the plane. Cirrus reps do not
demonstrate the plane well enough for people to make a decision, you are
right about that.

My only agenda is safety, and frankly, Cirrus has a poor rating. You can
make excuses all day, but the facts are the facts. They have killed too
many people in too short of time with too few planes. Has Cirrus done good
things for aviation, maybe they have. On the other hand, maybe they are
hurting it with their bad record.

Have you thought to consider the black eye that BRS has over this whole
thing? The anti parachute crowd has lots of ammo now, thanks to Cirrus.
How about the anti composite folks? I think composites are safer, but
thanks to Cirrus, it doesn't necessarily look that way in reality.

Whether anyone can recover from a spin @1000 feet is an interesting
discussion, but you are using it as a straw dog. I don't care what the
answer is, I know that if you take off in a Cirrus, and I take off in almost
any other new single, the odds are in my favor. Enjoy getting there faster,
those few saved minutes may be a large percentage of the rest of your life.

I hope you are paying attention to all your fellow owners who are dying and
being careful.

Lastly, if you want to make a point, correct my facts, spelling, grammer, or
disagree with me, then that is great. I will likely learn from it. On the
other hand, if you want to question my motives or insult me, stay on the
porch. We KNOW as an owner of an SR22 that you have an agenda, but I would
rather take each post at face value rather than prejudging them.

"Greg" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dude" person,
> I have really been reluctant to add a post to this thread because I
> don't think I have seen so much misinformation in my life, but I feel
> an obligation to correct patently false statements which I can refute
> from a position of knowledge. I have been flying an SR22 for 2 1/2
> years and have been a COPA member for 3 years.
>
> You said that there are problems with the engines needing work at 700
> hours. This is absolutely false. If this were happening, it would be
> all over the COPA forums and I read them almost everyday. I have not
> read the first report of an engine needing major work at 700 hours and
> your statement about the interconnection between the prop and throttle
> being problematic to the engine is so ridiculous as to be humorous. I
> also have a very good relationship with my Service Center and we have
> had a lot of conversations about various Cirrus issues, major engine
> work at 700 hours has never been mentioned. And shock cooling
> problems??!! Huh? I have never had this problem even once.
>
> As far as slowing the plane down, I have never had a problem with THAT
> either. I have had to start slowing down a little sooner BECAUSE I
> WAS GOING FASTER TO START WITH! I have flown an ILS down to the
> middle marker at 120kts (faster than the cruise speed of a 172) and
> dropped flaps to land in the normal touchdown zone. It's just not a
> problem and I have never wished I had speed brakes. By the way, THAT
> is the correct way to spell "speed brakes".
>
> And ANOTHER thing, if anybody thinks they are going to recover from an
> inadvertent spin in less than 1,000' in any common four place or six
> place airplane without hitting terra firma first, they are living a
> fantasy. You just might barely make it if you are well practiced in
> spins in the aircraft you are flying and perform spins on a regular
> basis and you are at a very light weight. However, it will not happen
> like that. It will happen unexpectedly, probably when you are heavy
> with an aft CG, while you are doing something else like changing to
> departure control frequency. You look up from the radio to see the
> world spinning. You have less than five seconds to figure out what
> happened and determine the correct control inputs. You must execute
> them perfectly, or you die. Depending on the plane, loading, and
> pilot proficiency in spin recovery, I would not expect many scenarios
> like this to end favorably with less than 2,000' for an average pilot.
>
> Geez, this thread has the worst signal to noise ratio I have seen in a
> long time. You know, it started out with just some guy asking for a
> little information, I don't think he wanted an earful of crap from
> someone with an agenda. Until you fly a Cirrus for more than a
> demonstration flight, you would do well to stick to verifiable facts.
>
> Greg
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Dude,
> > >
> > > > This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach.
> > >
> > > Oh? So how many have stalled on approach again? Right, none.
> >
> > Yet.
> >
> > Don't get so frigging defensive. My point is that the Cirrus can be
hard to
> > slow to approach speed. It takes more care than many other planes
because
> > it is slick, and you cannot control the pitch of the prop to add drag.
If
> > you had speed breaks you would allow the pilot more options to control
> > descent given that right now the system that governs the RPM/MP has
limited
> > ability to slow the plane without cutting the throttle.
> >
> > Bottom line is that if a person has speed breaks, he is less likely to
fly
> > slow because he can shed speed whenever needed.
> >
> > >
> > > > It would also reduce
> > > > the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control
> > system.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you can prove damage through shock cooling? Wow! I know no one else
who
> > > can. And where is the connection to the "engine control system"?
> > >
> >
> > Presently, according to some COPA members, there are many people having
> > excessive engine wear and needing lots of cylinder work early. One
> > suspected reason is shock cooling due to pilots cutting throttle to get
the
> > plane down without gaining too much speed. The cirrus design simply
adds
> > more penalty to poor vertical planning than most planes, and so the
engine
> > is often asked to pay the price.
> >
> > Another theory is that the engines are constanlty being run at set rpm's
> > that may not be the best rpm's or the smoothest. The pilot cannot
control
> > it.
> >
> > Bottom line, the phony Fadec system isn't really all that good.
> >
> >
> > > --
> > > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> > >

David Megginson

May 6th 04, 12:02 AM

Dude wrote:

> My only agenda is safety, and frankly, Cirrus has a poor rating.

That's a tricky conclusion to draw from so little data. After all, if two
Cirrus planes have a midair, they might double the Cirrus fatal-accident
rate for that year.

The Cirrus is a new design, and any new technology is risky until people
acquire the experience to use it safely (look at the crashes and midair
breakups with the earliest jetliners). Unfortunately, there will have to be
many more crashes before people are able to spot the
statistically-significant patterns (assuming that any exist) and put out
SB's and AD's, design new training methods, etc.

All the best,

David (a Piper owner, with no axe to grind either way)

Thomas Borchert

May 6th 04, 09:09 AM

Dude,

> Cirrus has a poor rating. You can
> make excuses all day, but the facts are the facts. They have killed too
> many people in too short of time with too few planes.
>

Well, then why have we been having this long, long thread? It ain't that
simple. "The Cirrusses have killed..."??? Come on, you know better. The
statistics may not look too good for the Cirrus at the moment, depending
on how you interpret them. Are those statistics significant already with a
new aircraft? Some doubt it. Are the underlying reasons clear? Not at
all. Do we know it is something to do with the aircraft? Nope. Do we know
it is the kind of pilots/owners that are attracted by this aircraft?
Possibly. Have we seen this before with other conceptually new aircraft?
Yes.

So, your conclusions are a wee bit too simplistic, IMHO.

>I hope you are paying attention to all your fellow owners who are dying

And statements like that, frankly, tend to drown all the sensible things
you might have to say.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dude

May 6th 04, 04:48 PM

That would be true, but that would be for ONE year. That is why you need
over a million flight hours before the numbers mean much. Had this sort of
thing been what was driving the numbers it would be obvious wouldn't it.
They have a big enough fleet now, so this argument isn't winning me over
like it did in the beginning.

Also, the training they are doing seems to be helping. However, if you
believe that the numbers are too small to be valuable, then perhaps we don't
know if the training is helping at all do we?

Also, its not the number of fatalaties that worries me as much as the number
of accidents that result in a fatality.

In fact, a valuable number that I have not seen studied would be the ration
of survivors for all souls on board for all accidents. That would tell you
a lot about the crash worthiness of the design. Except for people that
don't believe in statistics.

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com...
> Dude wrote:
>
> > My only agenda is safety, and frankly, Cirrus has a poor rating.
>
> That's a tricky conclusion to draw from so little data. After all, if two
> Cirrus planes have a midair, they might double the Cirrus fatal-accident
> rate for that year.
>
> The Cirrus is a new design, and any new technology is risky until people
> acquire the experience to use it safely (look at the crashes and midair
> breakups with the earliest jetliners). Unfortunately, there will have to
be
> many more crashes before people are able to spot the
> statistically-significant patterns (assuming that any exist) and put out
> SB's and AD's, design new training methods, etc.
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> David (a Piper owner, with no axe to grind either way)

Dude

May 6th 04, 04:54 PM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dude,
>
> > Cirrus has a poor rating. You can
> > make excuses all day, but the facts are the facts. They have killed too
> > many people in too short of time with too few planes.
> >
>
> Well, then why have we been having this long, long thread? It ain't that
> simple. "The Cirrusses have killed..."??? Come on, you know better. The
> statistics may not look too good for the Cirrus at the moment, depending
> on how you interpret them. Are those statistics significant already with a
> new aircraft? Some doubt it. Are the underlying reasons clear? Not at
> all. Do we know it is something to do with the aircraft? Nope. Do we know
> it is the kind of pilots/owners that are attracted by this aircraft?
> Possibly. Have we seen this before with other conceptually new aircraft?
> Yes.
>
> So, your conclusions are a wee bit too simplistic, IMHO.
>

Perhaps they are. At what point do we say its relevant, and how long do we
take to see if the trend is improving based on training or other changes.

I think a million hours is a good number, and if there is not significant
improvement by the third set of a million hours then they had best change
the design. That is admittedly a simplistic approach, but I have not seen
anyone set a more scientific objective standard.

> >I hope you are paying attention to all your fellow owners who are dying
>
> And statements like that, frankly, tend to drown all the sensible things
> you might have to say.
>

Mea Culpa, my only excuse is that he aggravated me.

> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Fred Wolf

May 6th 04, 05:31 PM

Have any of you actually rad all of the NTSB reports? Most of the accidents
were hair brained, in my opinion, and not a fault of the plane

FW
"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dude,
> >
> > > Cirrus has a poor rating. You can
> > > make excuses all day, but the facts are the facts. They have killed
too
> > > many people in too short of time with too few planes.
> > >
> >
> > Well, then why have we been having this long, long thread? It ain't that
> > simple. "The Cirrusses have killed..."??? Come on, you know better. The
> > statistics may not look too good for the Cirrus at the moment, depending
> > on how you interpret them. Are those statistics significant already with
a
> > new aircraft? Some doubt it. Are the underlying reasons clear? Not at
> > all. Do we know it is something to do with the aircraft? Nope. Do we
know
> > it is the kind of pilots/owners that are attracted by this aircraft?
> > Possibly. Have we seen this before with other conceptually new aircraft?
> > Yes.
> >
> > So, your conclusions are a wee bit too simplistic, IMHO.
> >
>
> Perhaps they are. At what point do we say its relevant, and how long do
we
> take to see if the trend is improving based on training or other changes.
>
> I think a million hours is a good number, and if there is not significant
> improvement by the third set of a million hours then they had best change
> the design. That is admittedly a simplistic approach, but I have not seen
> anyone set a more scientific objective standard.
>
> > >I hope you are paying attention to all your fellow owners who are dying
> >
> > And statements like that, frankly, tend to drown all the sensible things
> > you might have to say.
> >
>
> Mea Culpa, my only excuse is that he aggravated me.
>
> > --
> > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> >
>
>

TripFarmer

May 6th 04, 07:16 PM

Read this article in AVflash.............

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/233-full.html#187234

It will tell you more about the bad safety record of the Cirrus.

Trip

n article >, says...
>
>Greg,
>
>Sorry if I am calling your baby ugly, but...
>
>I get information from lots of different pilots. That means that I may end
>up spreading some bad poop, but I am open to being refuted.
>
>The information you are disagreeing with mostly comes from a very
>experienced pilot who is a COPA member, but does not own a Cirrus. I have
>no reason to suspect his lack of objectivity or that he has an axe to grind.
>He is very knowledgeable.
>
>I know someone who recently aquired an SR 22 on brokerage, so perhaps I will
>be able to get a better experience with the plane. Cirrus reps do not
>demonstrate the plane well enough for people to make a decision, you are
>right about that.
>
>My only agenda is safety, and frankly, Cirrus has a poor rating. You can
>make excuses all day, but the facts are the facts. They have killed too
>many people in too short of time with too few planes. Has Cirrus done good
>things for aviation, maybe they have. On the other hand, maybe they are
>hurting it with their bad record.
>
>Have you thought to consider the black eye that BRS has over this whole
>thing? The anti parachute crowd has lots of ammo now, thanks to Cirrus.
>How about the anti composite folks? I think composites are safer, but
>thanks to Cirrus, it doesn't necessarily look that way in reality.
>
>Whether anyone can recover from a spin @1000 feet is an interesting
>discussion, but you are using it as a straw dog. I don't care what the
>answer is, I know that if you take off in a Cirrus, and I take off in almost
>any other new single, the odds are in my favor. Enjoy getting there faster,
>those few saved minutes may be a large percentage of the rest of your life.
>
>I hope you are paying attention to all your fellow owners who are dying and
>being careful.
>
>Lastly, if you want to make a point, correct my facts, spelling, grammer, or
>disagree with me, then that is great. I will likely learn from it. On the
>other hand, if you want to question my motives or insult me, stay on the
>porch. We KNOW as an owner of an SR22 that you have an agenda, but I would
>rather take each post at face value rather than prejudging them.
>
>
>
>
>"Greg" > wrote in message
om...
>> "Dude" person,
>> I have really been reluctant to add a post to this thread because I
>> don't think I have seen so much misinformation in my life, but I feel
>> an obligation to correct patently false statements which I can refute
>> from a position of knowledge. I have been flying an SR22 for 2 1/2
>> years and have been a COPA member for 3 years.
>>
>> You said that there are problems with the engines needing work at 700
>> hours. This is absolutely false. If this were happening, it would be
>> all over the COPA forums and I read them almost everyday. I have not
>> read the first report of an engine needing major work at 700 hours and
>> your statement about the interconnection between the prop and throttle
>> being problematic to the engine is so ridiculous as to be humorous. I
>> also have a very good relationship with my Service Center and we have
>> had a lot of conversations about various Cirrus issues, major engine
>> work at 700 hours has never been mentioned. And shock cooling
>> problems??!! Huh? I have never had this problem even once.
>>
>> As far as slowing the plane down, I have never had a problem with THAT
>> either. I have had to start slowing down a little sooner BECAUSE I
>> WAS GOING FASTER TO START WITH! I have flown an ILS down to the
>> middle marker at 120kts (faster than the cruise speed of a 172) and
>> dropped flaps to land in the normal touchdown zone. It's just not a
>> problem and I have never wished I had speed brakes. By the way, THAT
>> is the correct way to spell "speed brakes".
>>
>> And ANOTHER thing, if anybody thinks they are going to recover from an
>> inadvertent spin in less than 1,000' in any common four place or six
>> place airplane without hitting terra firma first, they are living a
>> fantasy. You just might barely make it if you are well practiced in
>> spins in the aircraft you are flying and perform spins on a regular
>> basis and you are at a very light weight. However, it will not happen
>> like that. It will happen unexpectedly, probably when you are heavy
>> with an aft CG, while you are doing something else like changing to
>> departure control frequency. You look up from the radio to see the
>> world spinning. You have less than five seconds to figure out what
>> happened and determine the correct control inputs. You must execute
>> them perfectly, or you die. Depending on the plane, loading, and
>> pilot proficiency in spin recovery, I would not expect many scenarios
>> like this to end favorably with less than 2,000' for an average pilot.
>>
>> Geez, this thread has the worst signal to noise ratio I have seen in a
>> long time. You know, it started out with just some guy asking for a
>> little information, I don't think he wanted an earful of crap from
>> someone with an agenda. Until you fly a Cirrus for more than a
>> demonstration flight, you would do well to stick to verifiable facts.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> "Dude" > wrote in message
>...
>> > "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > Dude,
>> > >
>> > > > This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach.
>> > >
>> > > Oh? So how many have stalled on approach again? Right, none.
>> >
>> > Yet.
>> >
>> > Don't get so frigging defensive. My point is that the Cirrus can be
>hard to
>> > slow to approach speed. It takes more care than many other planes
>because
>> > it is slick, and you cannot control the pitch of the prop to add drag.
>If
>> > you had speed breaks you would allow the pilot more options to control
>> > descent given that right now the system that governs the RPM/MP has
>limited
>> > ability to slow the plane without cutting the throttle.
>> >
>> > Bottom line is that if a person has speed breaks, he is less likely to
>fly
>> > slow because he can shed speed whenever needed.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > It would also reduce
>> > > > the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control
>> > system.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > So you can prove damage through shock cooling? Wow! I know no one else
>who
>> > > can. And where is the connection to the "engine control system"?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Presently, according to some COPA members, there are many people having
>> > excessive engine wear and needing lots of cylinder work early. One
>> > suspected reason is shock cooling due to pilots cutting throttle to get
>the
>> > plane down without gaining too much speed. The cirrus design simply
>adds
>> > more penalty to poor vertical planning than most planes, and so the
>engine
>> > is often asked to pay the price.
>> >
>> > Another theory is that the engines are constanlty being run at set rpm's
>> > that may not be the best rpm's or the smoothest. The pilot cannot
>control
>> > it.
>> >
>> > Bottom line, the phony Fadec system isn't really all that good.
>> >
>> >
>> > > --
>> > > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>> > >
>
>

Dude

May 6th 04, 10:19 PM

As is the case with the rest of the fleet. The bottom line is you cannot
really know in most cases what makes up the causes in any real way. The
results are not that tough to interpret though. Fatal accidents per 100,000
hours takes all the subjectivity out of the equation.

"Fred Wolf" > wrote in message
...
> Have any of you actually rad all of the NTSB reports? Most of the
accidents
> were hair brained, in my opinion, and not a fault of the plane
>
> FW
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Dude,
> > >
> > > > Cirrus has a poor rating. You can
> > > > make excuses all day, but the facts are the facts. They have killed
> too
> > > > many people in too short of time with too few planes.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, then why have we been having this long, long thread? It ain't
that
> > > simple. "The Cirrusses have killed..."??? Come on, you know better.
The
> > > statistics may not look too good for the Cirrus at the moment,
depending
> > > on how you interpret them. Are those statistics significant already
with
> a
> > > new aircraft? Some doubt it. Are the underlying reasons clear? Not at
> > > all. Do we know it is something to do with the aircraft? Nope. Do we
> know
> > > it is the kind of pilots/owners that are attracted by this aircraft?
> > > Possibly. Have we seen this before with other conceptually new
aircraft?
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > So, your conclusions are a wee bit too simplistic, IMHO.
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps they are. At what point do we say its relevant, and how long do
> we
> > take to see if the trend is improving based on training or other
changes.
> >
> > I think a million hours is a good number, and if there is not
significant
> > improvement by the third set of a million hours then they had best
change
> > the design. That is admittedly a simplistic approach, but I have not
seen
> > anyone set a more scientific objective standard.
> >
> > > >I hope you are paying attention to all your fellow owners who are
dying
> > >
> > > And statements like that, frankly, tend to drown all the sensible
things
> > > you might have to say.
> > >
> >
> > Mea Culpa, my only excuse is that he aggravated me.
> >
> > > --
> > > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Greg

May 7th 04, 04:59 AM

"Dude" > wrote in message >...
> Greg,
>
> Sorry if I am calling your baby ugly, but...

It's not my baby, it's just an airplane. It also happens to be a
fantastic travelling machine that my family and I get more use from
than any plane before it.

>
> I get information from lots of different pilots. That means that I may end
> up spreading some bad poop, but I am open to being refuted.
>
That, my friend, is the biggest understatement since, "Houston, we
have a problem"

> The information you are disagreeing with mostly comes from a very
> experienced pilot who is a COPA member, but does not own a Cirrus. I have
> no reason to suspect his lack of objectivity or that he has an axe to grind.
> He is very knowledgeable.
>
Let's see, experienced pilot, a member of COPA (so he has at least
$50), supposedly objective, and very knowledgeable. Well, I fit that
description and I also have about 300 hours in the SR22, have been
through the Cirrus factory training, an IFR rating, a lot of other
flying hours in Cessna 152s, 172s, 172RGs, 182s, T-6 Texans, T-28
Trojans, competed nationally in gliders for 10 years, and my wife
thinks I am very knowledgeable. With all of that going for me, I am
going to tell you right now that Cessnas are the most unsafe plane in
the air, I heard that the wings were falling off of them as soon as
they passed through 1,000' AGL and people were dying every day in
them. This must be true, I am more qualified than your 'friend'.

> I know someone who recently aquired an SR 22 on brokerage, so perhaps I will
> be able to get a better experience with the plane. Cirrus reps do not
> demonstrate the plane well enough for people to make a decision, you are
> right about that.
>
Hmmmmm. I have read post after post made by YOU, 'Dude' person, that
has proclaimed the Cirrus is just plain unsafe. Yet, now you are
saying that you may have an opportunity to "...get a better experiance
with the plane". So you are willing to get in and fly it, huh? I
don't think I could have shot a bigger hole in your credibility
myself.

> My only agenda is safety, and frankly, Cirrus has a poor rating. You can
> make excuses all day, but the facts are the facts. They have killed too
> many people in too short of time with too few planes. Has Cirrus done good
> things for aviation, maybe they have. On the other hand, maybe they are
> hurting it with their bad record.

I didn't know I made an excuse, where was it? Help me here. And yes,
facts are facts, this is exactly what I am trying to help you with.
The rest of this paragraph doesn't justify a response, hyperbole.

>
> Have you thought to consider the black eye that BRS has over this whole
> thing? The anti parachute crowd has lots of ammo now, thanks to Cirrus.
> How about the anti composite folks? I think composites are safer, but
> thanks to Cirrus, it doesn't necessarily look that way in reality.
>
BRS has a black eye!!?? How? I know there are SIX people walking
around alive today because of it. Look, I will admit that I was not
crazy about the 'chute when I bought the plane, I asked the salesman
several times why they couldn't just leave it out on my plane. I can
think of a lot of better ways to use 60 lbs. But you know what, now,
I kinda' like knowing it's there. Gives my wife a warm and fuzzy
feeling too.
And what about this 'anti parachute crowd' and the 'anti composite
folks' you mention? Are they a club? Do they have a website? How do
you get in touch with them? Did they have a seminar at Sun-N-Fun?
Are the members of the 'anti parachute' crowd depressed that those six
people are walking around today?

> Whether anyone can recover from a spin @1000 feet is an interesting
> discussion, but you are using it as a straw dog. I don't care what the
> answer is, I know that if you take off in a Cirrus, and I take off in almost
> any other new single, the odds are in my favor. Enjoy getting there faster,
> those few saved minutes may be a large percentage of the rest of your life.
>
This sounds like the musings of a person desperately trying to justify
continued ownership of their current obsolete aircraft (if you even
have one).

> I hope you are paying attention to all your fellow owners who are dying and
> being careful.
>
If YOU have an airplane, your fellow owners are dying too.

> Lastly, if you want to make a point, correct my facts, spelling, grammer, or
> disagree with me, then that is great. I will likely learn from it. On the
> other hand, if you want to question my motives or insult me, stay on the
> porch. We KNOW as an owner of an SR22 that you have an agenda, but I would
> rather take each post at face value rather than prejudging them.
>
>
Grammar is spelled with two 'a's. I have concluded you have
questionable motives because you have: 1)dedicated so much time being
critical of an airplane you have never flown, 2) you don't even have a
basic knowledge of the plane's aerodynamic design goals, 3) you have
attempted to pass off completely false information as gospel. You are
a person with an agenda. I don't know what it is or why, but it's
there. As far as staying on the porch, well, when I get up from it is
not your call. And how does ownership of an SR22 mean I have an
agenda? I don't care if you or any of the other people on this site
love 'em or hate 'em. I do like hearing TRUTH though. This thread
was started by someone just looking for information about Cirrus
aircraft. You are not qualified to make a post on the subject. Of
all the people that should be on the porch... And by the way, you have
made more than enough posts to eliminate anyone PREjudging you. Your
position is exceedingly clear, however poorly formulated. You have
attempted to portray yourself as some sort of unbiased, informed
expert while waving the safety banner to legitimize your opinions.
Particularly insidious, and not helpful to those seeking real
information.
>
>
> "Greg" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Dude" person,
> > I have really been reluctant to add a post to this thread because I
> > don't think I have seen so much misinformation in my life, but I feel
> > an obligation to correct patently false statements which I can refute
> > from a position of knowledge. I have been flying an SR22 for 2 1/2
> > years and have been a COPA member for 3 years.
> >
> > You said that there are problems with the engines needing work at 700
> > hours. This is absolutely false. If this were happening, it would be
> > all over the COPA forums and I read them almost everyday. I have not
> > read the first report of an engine needing major work at 700 hours and
> > your statement about the interconnection between the prop and throttle
> > being problematic to the engine is so ridiculous as to be humorous. I
> > also have a very good relationship with my Service Center and we have
> > had a lot of conversations about various Cirrus issues, major engine
> > work at 700 hours has never been mentioned. And shock cooling
> > problems??!! Huh? I have never had this problem even once.
> >
> > As far as slowing the plane down, I have never had a problem with THAT
> > either. I have had to start slowing down a little sooner BECAUSE I
> > WAS GOING FASTER TO START WITH! I have flown an ILS down to the
> > middle marker at 120kts (faster than the cruise speed of a 172) and
> > dropped flaps to land in the normal touchdown zone. It's just not a
> > problem and I have never wished I had speed brakes. By the way, THAT
> > is the correct way to spell "speed brakes".
> >
> > And ANOTHER thing, if anybody thinks they are going to recover from an
> > inadvertent spin in less than 1,000' in any common four place or six
> > place airplane without hitting terra firma first, they are living a
> > fantasy. You just might barely make it if you are well practiced in
> > spins in the aircraft you are flying and perform spins on a regular
> > basis and you are at a very light weight. However, it will not happen
> > like that. It will happen unexpectedly, probably when you are heavy
> > with an aft CG, while you are doing something else like changing to
> > departure control frequency. You look up from the radio to see the
> > world spinning. You have less than five seconds to figure out what
> > happened and determine the correct control inputs. You must execute
> > them perfectly, or you die. Depending on the plane, loading, and
> > pilot proficiency in spin recovery, I would not expect many scenarios
> > like this to end favorably with less than 2,000' for an average pilot.
> >
> > Geez, this thread has the worst signal to noise ratio I have seen in a
> > long time. You know, it started out with just some guy asking for a
> > little information, I don't think he wanted an earful of crap from
> > someone with an agenda. Until you fly a Cirrus for more than a
> > demonstration flight, you would do well to stick to verifiable facts.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > "Dude" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Dude,
> > > >
> > > > > This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach.
> > > >
> > > > Oh? So how many have stalled on approach again? Right, none.
> > >
> > > Yet.
> > >
> > > Don't get so frigging defensive. My point is that the Cirrus can be
> hard to
> > > slow to approach speed. It takes more care than many other planes
> because
> > > it is slick, and you cannot control the pitch of the prop to add drag.
> If
> > > you had speed breaks you would allow the pilot more options to control
> > > descent given that right now the system that governs the RPM/MP has
> limited
> > > ability to slow the plane without cutting the throttle.
> > >
> > > Bottom line is that if a person has speed breaks, he is less likely to
> fly
> > > slow because he can shed speed whenever needed.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > It would also reduce
> > > > > the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control
> system.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So you can prove damage through shock cooling? Wow! I know no one else
> who
> > > > can. And where is the connection to the "engine control system"?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Presently, according to some COPA members, there are many people having
> > > excessive engine wear and needing lots of cylinder work early. One
> > > suspected reason is shock cooling due to pilots cutting throttle to get
> the
> > > plane down without gaining too much speed. The cirrus design simply
> adds
> > > more penalty to poor vertical planning than most planes, and so the
> engine
> > > is often asked to pay the price.
> > >
> > > Another theory is that the engines are constanlty being run at set rpm's
> > > that may not be the best rpm's or the smoothest. The pilot cannot
> control
> > > it.
> > >
> > > Bottom line, the phony Fadec system isn't really all that good.
> > >
> > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> > > >

Thomas Borchert

May 7th 04, 08:19 AM

Dude,

> then they had best change
> the design.
>

only if the design is at fault. Is it?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Stefan

May 7th 04, 12:56 PM

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> only if the design is at fault. Is it?

It is a new design (gasp!) and doesn't come from Cessna (gasp!!) and
doesn't handle like a truck (gasp!!!), so there *must* be something wrong.

Stefan

Thomas Borchert

May 7th 04, 03:48 PM

Stefan,

> > only if the design is at fault. Is it?
>
> It is a new design (gasp!) and doesn't come from Cessna (gasp!!) and
> doesn't handle like a truck (gasp!!!), so there *must* be something wrong.
>

We're on the same page. Oh, and those that say in earnest what you said in
mocking them would add, after five minutes: "There's WAY too little
innovation in GA!"

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dude

May 7th 04, 07:11 PM

> >
> > Sorry if I am calling your baby ugly, but...
>
> It's not my baby, it's just an airplane. It also happens to be a
> fantastic travelling machine that my family and I get more use from
> than any plane before it.
>

Its an expression. You are not supposed to take it literally

>
> >
> > I get information from lots of different pilots. That means that I may
end
> > up spreading some bad poop, but I am open to being refuted.
> >
> That, my friend, is the biggest understatement since, "Houston, we
> have a problem"
>

Well, if you don't value the opinions and lessons from the people you meet
everyday, I am sorry for you.

>
> > The information you are disagreeing with mostly comes from a very
> > experienced pilot who is a COPA member, but does not own a Cirrus. I
have
> > no reason to suspect his lack of objectivity or that he has an axe to
grind.
> > He is very knowledgeable.
> >
> Let's see, experienced pilot, a member of COPA (so he has at least
> $50), supposedly objective, and very knowledgeable. Well, I fit that
> description and I also have about 300 hours in the SR22, have been
> through the Cirrus factory training, an IFR rating, a lot of other
> flying hours in Cessna 152s, 172s, 172RGs, 182s, T-6 Texans, T-28
> Trojans, competed nationally in gliders for 10 years, and my wife
> thinks I am very knowledgeable. With all of that going for me, I am
> going to tell you right now that Cessnas are the most unsafe plane in
> the air, I heard that the wings were falling off of them as soon as
> they passed through 1,000' AGL and people were dying every day in
> them. This must be true, I am more qualified than your 'friend'.
>

Hmm, I would say this fellow is about your peer, but obviously he is more
objective if that is your opinion about Cessna (which it obviously is not).

>
> > I know someone who recently aquired an SR 22 on brokerage, so perhaps I
will
> > be able to get a better experience with the plane. Cirrus reps do not
> > demonstrate the plane well enough for people to make a decision, you are
> > right about that.
> >
> Hmmmmm. I have read post after post made by YOU, 'Dude' person, that
> has proclaimed the Cirrus is just plain unsafe. Yet, now you are
> saying that you may have an opportunity to "...get a better experiance
> with the plane". So you are willing to get in and fly it, huh? I
> don't think I could have shot a bigger hole in your credibility
> myself.
>

Let me get my position perfectly clear. I am not willing to state that the
SR22 or SR20 are "unsafe". I am willing to say that they are relatively
less safe than most of their competitors. I am much in favor of improving or
changing the design. I have made suggestions on changes that you disagree
with, but then you have no problem with the planes record so I would expect
that. I have stated that there are people on this board whose experience is
such that I would fly with them in just about anything they judged safe for
the flight. I would feel safe with a pilot with your record, and if I go up
in an SR22 I will be going with a very experienced pilot.

I can take guesses about what to do to improve Cirrus' safety record, and
you could likely do better. However, you would first have to decide that
there should be change.

>
> > My only agenda is safety, and frankly, Cirrus has a poor rating. You
can
> > make excuses all day, but the facts are the facts. They have killed too
> > many people in too short of time with too few planes. Has Cirrus done
good
> > things for aviation, maybe they have. On the other hand, maybe they are
> > hurting it with their bad record.
>
> I didn't know I made an excuse, where was it? Help me here. And yes,
> facts are facts, this is exactly what I am trying to help you with.
> The rest of this paragraph doesn't justify a response, hyperbole.
>

I didn't know you did either. My use of "you" was intended to be read like
"one". Perhaps I should me more careful since I obviously hit a sore spot
with you. I would not agree with your hyperbole opinion. I put into
english what the statistic says. At what rate per 100,000 do you think its
too much? Are you willing to draw a line?

> >
> > Have you thought to consider the black eye that BRS has over this whole
> > thing? The anti parachute crowd has lots of ammo now, thanks to Cirrus.
> > How about the anti composite folks? I think composites are safer, but
> > thanks to Cirrus, it doesn't necessarily look that way in reality.
> >
> BRS has a black eye!!?? How? I know there are SIX people walking
> around alive today because of it. Look, I will admit that I was not
> crazy about the 'chute when I bought the plane, I asked the salesman
> several times why they couldn't just leave it out on my plane. I can
> think of a lot of better ways to use 60 lbs. But you know what, now,
> I kinda' like knowing it's there. Gives my wife a warm and fuzzy
> feeling too.
> And what about this 'anti parachute crowd' and the 'anti composite
> folks' you mention? Are they a club? Do they have a website? How do
> you get in touch with them? Did they have a seminar at Sun-N-Fun?
> Are the members of the 'anti parachute' crowd depressed that those six
> people are walking around today?
>
>

You are taking me too literally, then using that to argue with me. Its not
getting either of us anywhere. No they are not an organization, but if you
go to the archives, you will see that they are of similar minds.

If only BRS equipped plane in the market has a bad safety record, then it
cannot reflect well on BRS. We are all glad for the people who were saved
by the chute. Unfortunately, we have several others who were not saved. We
really cannot make a positive judgement on the subject without using
subjective anecdotal evidence or relying on the numbers. I choose the
numbers. For one thing, the weight and balance effect the chute has on the
plane, as well as the psychological effect on the pilot are hard to measure
without a statistic.

> > Whether anyone can recover from a spin @1000 feet is an interesting
> > discussion, but you are using it as a straw dog. I don't care what the
> > answer is, I know that if you take off in a Cirrus, and I take off in
almost
> > any other new single, the odds are in my favor. Enjoy getting there
faster,
> > those few saved minutes may be a large percentage of the rest of your
life.
> >
> This sounds like the musings of a person desperately trying to justify
> continued ownership of their current obsolete aircraft (if you even
> have one).

If you want to continue with ad hominem attacks, I will simply start to
ignore your posts. There is simply no place for it. My airplane is not
obsolete, and even if I did not own one, that would not make my opinion any
less valuable. My neighbor does not own a plane anymore, he sold them all
after he lost his medical. I value his opinion highly. I also like to talk
about his P51 experience, and hope to fly one myself one day.

If you are trying to "win" an argument (which you apparently are) you should
have gone the hyperbole rout on this one. You would have had me.

>
>
> > I hope you are paying attention to all your fellow owners who are dying
and
> > being careful.
> >
> If YOU have an airplane, your fellow owners are dying too.
>

But not as fast as yours, that is my point. (you missed the real hyperbole
here again)

>
> > Lastly, if you want to make a point, correct my facts, spelling,
grammer, or
> > disagree with me, then that is great. I will likely learn from it. On
the
> > other hand, if you want to question my motives or insult me, stay on the
> > porch. We KNOW as an owner of an SR22 that you have an agenda, but I
would
> > rather take each post at face value rather than prejudging them.
> >
> >
> Grammar is spelled with two 'a's. I have concluded you have
> questionable motives because you have: 1)dedicated so much time being
> critical of an airplane you have never flown

I am not dedicated to it at all. And have test flown the 20.

, 2) you don't even have a
> basic knowledge of the plane's aerodynamic design goals,

I have a great understanding of the goals, its the results I don't like.

3) you have
> attempted to pass off completely false information as gospel.

That is both an overstatement and in dispute. I claim no gospel here, and
admitted my info was second hand.

You are
> a person with an agenda. I don't know what it is or why, but it's
> there.

I love aviation, I want it to reduce increased insurance costs, I am
concerned about safety, I am a bit of a consumer watchdog. Happy?

As far as staying on the porch, well, when I get up from it is
> not your call.

I am not worried, its perfectly within my ability to ignore your posts.

And how does ownership of an SR22 mean I have an
> agenda? I don't care if you or any of the other people on this site
> love 'em or hate 'em.

Because you have invested a lot of money and emotion in to your ownership
decision.

I do like hearing TRUTH though. This thread
> was started by someone just looking for information about Cirrus
> aircraft. You are not qualified to make a post on the subject.

This is a forum for discussion. You don't seem to like that. Perhaps you
should stop logging on. And BTW, I help many people with aircraft purchase
decisions. I tell pilots with your experience that they should buy a Cirrus
if that is what they want, but they should look into the quality record by
joining COPA and asking around. I tell people without the experience to
handle a serious plane to look at something with a better safety record.

Of
> all the people that should be on the porch... And by the way, you have
> made more than enough posts to eliminate anyone PREjudging you. Your
> position is exceedingly clear, however poorly formulated. You have
> attempted to portray yourself as some sort of unbiased, informed
> expert while waving the safety banner to legitimize your opinions.
> Particularly insidious, and not helpful to those seeking real
> information.
> >

If you wanted to change my mind about Cirrus, you are doing a bad job. If
you had refuted my posts without attacking or judging me, then I would be
more inclined to listen. Instead, you have attacked me which makes me think
that you are just defensive because you own the plane, and want to defend
its value and your decision to buy one. Why would you want to prejudge me,
or how you would prejudge me is useless. Pay attention to the post.

If I said things that were not true, it was not intentional. I am fully
capable of learning new things, and changing my opinion. I have said
nothing here that has not been said before many times. Get over it.

As for my bias, you are sure that I have one, but ONLY because you disagree
with me? Yet, the basis of our disagreement is not even getting discussed in
this post. You can argue the details, yet you cannot refute the fatalities.
We can either ignore them and make you happy, or discuss them and make you
uncomfortable. I will risk your ire to see if we can come up with a fix.