Another Cirrus 'chute deployment

[Dan Luke]

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/9723097.htm

[Stefan]

"Pilot William Graham, 65, told authorities that his airplane, a Cirrus
SR22, stalled at 16,000 feet, ..."

I'd rather say that it was the pilot who stalled the plane.

"... then encountered turbulent weather at 13,000 to 15,000 feet that
sent it into a spin, according to the Stockton Record newspaper. Graham
deployed an emergency parachute ..."

A spin at 15'000 ft is a non-event and can easily be recovered without a
chute.

So my bottom line is: The pilot should contact a good flight instructor.
(This doesn't change the fact that the chute saved two lives.)

Stefan

[Michael 182]

Glad the chute worked, but what would cause an airplane to stall at 16,000
feet, then encounter turbulence that would send it into a spin at 15,000
feet? At that height it would seem a stall should be pretty simple to
recover from, although, once again, I can't imagine what would make the
plane stall in the first place during cruise.

Michael


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/9723097.htm
>

[Dan Luke]

"Michael 182" wrote:
> Glad the chute worked, but what would cause an airplane to stall at
> 16,000 feet, then encounter turbulence that would send it into a spin
> at 15,000 feet? At that height it would seem a stall should be pretty
> simple to recover from, although, once again, I can't imagine what
> would make the plane stall in the first place during cruise.

Well, remember that this report comes from a typically aviation-ignorant
reporter. The NTSB report may be more revealing.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Peter R.]

Michael 182 wrote:

> Glad the chute worked, but what would cause an airplane to stall at 16,000
> feet, then encounter turbulence that would send it into a spin at 15,000
> feet?

My take on the article, based on past news media aviation ignorance, is
that the engine most likely quit at 16,000.

Remember: One must think like the new media to interpret the new
media. :)

--
Peter

[Stefan]

Peter R. wrote:

>>Glad the chute worked, but what would cause an airplane to stall at 16,000
>>feet, then encounter turbulence that would send it into a spin at 15,000
>>feet?

> My take on the article, based on past news media aviation ignorance, is
> that the engine most likely quit at 16,000.

Ah! And the engine out caused the plane to fall out of the sky...

Stefan

[Michael 182]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Michael 182 wrote:
>
>> Glad the chute worked, but what would cause an airplane to stall at
>> 16,000
>> feet, then encounter turbulence that would send it into a spin at 15,000
>> feet?
>
> My take on the article, based on past news media aviation ignorance, is
> that the engine most likely quit at 16,000.

I know we are all engaged in guesswork at this point, but if an engine fails
at 16,000 feet I would expect that there is a nice long glide availble
(regardless of turbulence) that would likely yield a pretty good landing
spot. I know, I wasn't there - I'm not judging, just wondering...

Michael

[Peter R.]

Michael 182 wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
> > Michael 182 wrote:
> >
> >> Glad the chute worked, but what would cause an airplane to stall at
> >> 16,000
> >> feet, then encounter turbulence that would send it into a spin at 15,000
> >> feet?
> >
> > My take on the article, based on past news media aviation ignorance, is
> > that the engine most likely quit at 16,000.
>
> I know we are all engaged in guesswork at this point, but if an engine fails
> at 16,000 feet I would expect that there is a nice long glide availble
> (regardless of turbulence) that would likely yield a pretty good landing
> spot. I know, I wasn't there - I'm not judging, just wondering...

I totally agree with you. BTW, I am not speculating, just interpreting
the article. :)

--
Peter

[David Rind]

Stefan wrote:
> "Pilot William Graham, 65, told authorities that his airplane, a Cirrus
> SR22, stalled at 16,000 feet, ..."
>
> I'd rather say that it was the pilot who stalled the plane.
>
> "... then encountered turbulent weather at 13,000 to 15,000 feet that
> sent it into a spin, according to the Stockton Record newspaper. Graham
> deployed an emergency parachute ..."
>
> A spin at 15'000 ft is a non-event and can easily be recovered without a
> chute.
>
> So my bottom line is: The pilot should contact a good flight instructor.
> (This doesn't change the fact that the chute saved two lives.)
>
> Stefan

Have you recovered an SR22 from a spin? If not, are you certain it's a
non-event? My understanding is that the POH technique for handling a
spin in an SR22 is to deploy the chute, and that Cirrus has spent a fair
amount of effort reminding pilots of that fact.

--
David Rind

[Cockpit Colin]

Anyone know what the service ceiling of the aircraft is?

[Icebound]

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone know what the service ceiling of the aircraft is?
>
>

A spec sheet on Avweb in 2002 says 17K, so he was pushing the limit.

The Cirrus site seems to hide such info very well.

[Jay Honeck]

> I know we are all engaged in guesswork at this point, but if an engine
fails
> at 16,000 feet I would expect that there is a nice long glide availble
> (regardless of turbulence) that would likely yield a pretty good landing
> spot. I know, I wasn't there - I'm not judging, just wondering...

Having just flown in that part of the world, I can safely say that an engine
failure at 16K *might* only give you a couple of thousand feet to think
about finding a landing spot, depending on the terrain. A long glide might
not be in the cards.

Worse, there were plenty of spots in the mountains where an engine failure
would have been non-survivable.

Unless, of course, you had a ballistic 'chute to deploy, like this guy did.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[StellaStar]

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/9723097.htm

I'm a bit concerned that I never heard about another recent deployment...

"Still, the parachute system has not proven a cure-all, as evidenced by the
Sept. 10 crash of a Cirrus SR22 in Park Falls, Wis. That crash claimed the life
of Gerald Miller, 60, of Seboygan, Wis."

It doesn't make clear whether the old fellow in Sheboygan deployed...

[Brenor Brophy]

The FAA report gives the position of his last radio contact as 2 miles east
of Manteca. This is right in the middle of the California Central Valley -
flat farm land, about 50' MSL that stretches uninterrupted north to south
for more than 350 miles. It is probably the longest emergency landing strip
west of the Rockies. There is no shortage of real airports either.

I would assume that either the spin was not recoverable, or the pilot simply
followed the instructions to use the BSR in the event of a spin. The real
question is how you could get into a spin from turbulence in cruise flight
in the first place. However, there were some mean thunderstorms in the area
at the time (2" of rain fell in Sacramento earlier in the day and the
weather was heading SW towards the accident area). Basically it was a mean
cold front that swept through the area about the time of the accident- and
it certainly wasn't forecast to be as wild as it turned out (wild by CA
standards that is). I would think he more than likely got caught up in some
of that convective activity.

[Brenor Brophy]

I just got thinking why would you be at 16,000' over the CA Central Valley ?
I like to fly high, normally 8,500' is my min altitude while, I'm flying XC
around the state, but the oxygen requirements keep me below 12,500'. Even if
I had oxygen on board - I would probably not use it until I had to get to
altitude. For example, If you fly IFR than many of the MEA's over the
mountains are going to force your to have oxygen.

But say I was flying VFR, and I saw a line of CB ahead of me, I might be
tempted to push it and try to climb over them. Maybe, there is already a
layer underneath me so I can't get down to go underneath. Maybe, I just
don't want to be under a big mean CB build-up when it looks like it tops out
only a few thousand feet higher. Hopefully I have ox or maybe I figure I'll
be "over the hump" before I'll really need it. Either way I start climbing.
16,000' and the plane really doesn't want to go any higher, I've maxed out
the power, I'm pitched for best climb maybe a bit more and I'm still looking
like I'll enter the top of the cloud. I starting to get worried, maybe I'm
not IFR rated and anyway that is a mean CB cloud under me. I really don't
want to be inside it. Without realizing it, I'm dangerously close to a
stall. Maybe, I decide I've had enough and decide to do a 180, but as I
turn, the plane stalls. I wasn't expecting it and before I know it I'm into
the cloud getting kicked all over the place. Right about then I'd be really
glad if I had a parachute.

[NW_PILOT]

Maybe the guy was laid off and/or unable to pay off the aircraft and did
this for the insurance???? or maybe it was a real emergency no one knows
except for the person flying the airplane. I'd seriously be questioning his
judgment from the news article!


"Brenor Brophy" > wrote in message
.. .
> The FAA report gives the position of his last radio contact as 2 miles
east
> of Manteca. This is right in the middle of the California Central Valley -
> flat farm land, about 50' MSL that stretches uninterrupted north to south
> for more than 350 miles. It is probably the longest emergency landing
strip
> west of the Rockies. There is no shortage of real airports either.
>
> I would assume that either the spin was not recoverable, or the pilot
simply
> followed the instructions to use the BSR in the event of a spin. The real
> question is how you could get into a spin from turbulence in cruise flight
> in the first place. However, there were some mean thunderstorms in the
area
> at the time (2" of rain fell in Sacramento earlier in the day and the
> weather was heading SW towards the accident area). Basically it was a mean
> cold front that swept through the area about the time of the accident- and
> it certainly wasn't forecast to be as wild as it turned out (wild by CA
> standards that is). I would think he more than likely got caught up in
some
> of that convective activity.
>
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> "Pilot William Graham, 65, told authorities that his airplane, a Cirrus
> SR22, stalled at 16,000 feet, ..."
>
> I'd rather say that it was the pilot who stalled the plane.
>
> "... then encountered turbulent weather at 13,000 to 15,000 feet that
> sent it into a spin, according to the Stockton Record newspaper. Graham
> deployed an emergency parachute ..."
>
> A spin at 15'000 ft is a non-event and can easily be recovered without a
> chute.

None of the Cirrus models will recover from a spin. The only spin recovery
method in the manual is to deploy the parachute.

[C J Campbell]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:ow24d.81563$MQ5.65618@attbi_s52...
> Glad the chute worked, but what would cause an airplane to stall at 16,000
> feet, then encounter turbulence that would send it into a spin at 15,000
> feet? At that height it would seem a stall should be pretty simple to
> recover from, although, once again, I can't imagine what would make the
> plane stall in the first place during cruise.
>

The airplane was near the service ceiling and may already have been at a
high angle of attack. Flying slowly because of the turbulence may have
increased the angle of attack still further. If the turbulence is severe the
airplane could exceed the critical angle of attack. Picture the airplane in
a straight and level attitude but descending straight down and you get the
idea -- very high angle of attack. This would especially be true if the
airplane was in a rapid descent because of the turbulence and the pilot was
trying to maintain altitude or even a straight and level attitude. If the
airplane is uncoordinated then the stall could turn into a spin. Picture
again the airplane moving straight down in a level attitude, but now one
wing is moving backward relative to the other. That wing will have a higher
angle of attack than the other; it will stall without warning and the
airplane will immediately begin to roll into a spin, possibly even inverted.
Of course, the turbulence would have to be pretty bad to cause this, but in
the Central Valley in the vicinity of thunderstorms, I can believe it. The
stall resistant Cirrus might hold out longer than other airplanes, but it is
not invulnerable.

Cirrus deliberately limited rudder and elevator travel to prevent stalls and
spins. This has the effect, however, of making it more difficult or even
impossible to recover once a spin develops. There is not enough rudder
authority to recover. The Cirrus has never demonstrated a spin recovery,
though it has been tried. The only way the airplane could receive
certification was to require deployment of the parachute in the event of a
spin.

There seems to be a pattern of Cirrus aircraft entering stalls and spins in
turbulence at high altitudes. It may be a training problem -- pilots taking
Cirrus airplanes into conditions that they would not try in other airplanes.
For now, I think that if you take a Cirrus into turbulence at high altitude
there is a certain risk that the airplane will be lost. That risk may be
more or less than other types, but it is there.

[Stefan]

C J Campbell wrote:

> impossible to recover once a spin develops. There is not enough rudder
> authority to recover. The Cirrus has never demonstrated a spin recovery,
> though it has been tried. The only way the airplane could receive
> certification was to require deployment of the parachute in the event of a
> spin.

I didn't know this. Personally, I don't like the idea at all wouldn't
buy a plane that can't be recovered by the standard procedure. But then,
I'm maybe just old fashioned.

Stefan

[Hilton]

C J Campbell wrote:
> There is not enough rudder
> authority to recover. The Cirrus has never demonstrated a spin recovery,
> though it has been tried.

I don't believe either of these statements are correct - if you have
references agreeing with you, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

In fact, the SR22 POH says: "If time and altitude permit, the following
procedures may be used to determine whether the aircraft is in a recoverable
spiral/incipient spin or is unrecoverable and, therefore, has departed
controlled flight." It then goes on to give the spin recovery checklist:

1. Power Lever .................IDLE
2. Control Yoke ............... Neutral
3. Rudder ......................... Briskly Apply Opposite Yaw/Spin
Direction

Hilton

[Thomas Borchert]

Brenor,

> or the pilot simply
> followed the instructions to use the BSR in the event of a spin.
>

Actually, the instructions are to try conventional recovery techniques
and THEN deploy the chute if they don't work. I wonder if that was
done. Also, I'd be very interested to know more about the involvement
of autopilot operations in this one.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> None of the Cirrus models will recover from a spin.
>

Here we go again. This statement is BS! And you know it!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Stefan,

> I didn't know this.
>

Because it is not true.

Cirrus chose to comply with the spin certification by installing the
parachute. This was NOT done after spin recovery in the traditional way
had been tried unsuccesfully, as CJ implies. It was done in order to
save money by not doing traditional spin recovery testing at all.

Thus, the official spin recovery testing requried for certification
wasn't done. This says nothing about whether the aircraft is
recoverable from a spin by traditional methods. It was NOT tried, at
least not to the extent necessary for certification. Instead, the
parachute was installed and accepted by the FAA (and EASA) as a
certifiable means of dealing with spins.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Stefan]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> done. Also, I'd be very interested to know more about the involvement
> of autopilot operations in this one.

Good point. Climb near service ceiling, set the autopilot to hold
altitude, enter some downdraft, and when the autopilot has increased the
angle of attack to the maximum, hit some turbulence ... and there you
go. An autopilot isn't a substitute for pilot judgment.

Just speculating, as everybody.

Stefan

[Peter R.]

Brenor Brophy wrote:

> I just got thinking why would you be at 16,000' over the CA Central Valley ?
> I like to fly high, normally 8,500' is my min altitude while, I'm flying XC
> around the state, but the oxygen requirements keep me below 12,500'. Even if
> I had oxygen on board - I would probably not use it until I had to get to
> altitude. For example, If you fly IFR than many of the MEA's over the
> mountains are going to force your to have oxygen.

Here in the northeast US, there was a lot of thunderstorm activity this
past summer. I fly a turbo Bonanza and when t-storms were in the
forecast, I often chose an altitude in the mid-teens, despite having to
suck on some O2, to have a better chance of spotting the build-ups above
the haze and/or low layers.


--
Peter

[Dan Luke]

"C J Campbell" wrote:
> None of the Cirrus models will recover from a spin.

Oh, baloney, Chris.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Newps]

Hilton wrote:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>>There is not enough rudder
>>authority to recover. The Cirrus has never demonstrated a spin recovery,
>>though it has been tried.
>
>
> I don't believe either of these statements are correct - if you have
> references agreeing with you, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
>
> In fact, the SR22 POH says: "If time and altitude permit, the following
> procedures may be used to determine whether the aircraft is in a recoverable
> spiral/incipient spin or is unrecoverable and, therefore, has departed
> controlled flight." It then goes on to give the spin recovery checklist:
>
> 1. Power Lever .................IDLE
> 2. Control Yoke ............... Neutral
> 3. Rudder ......................... Briskly Apply Opposite Yaw/Spin
> Direction

Don't bother, CJ will never believe anything about the Cirrus that goes
against his predetermined belief that it is a horribly unsafe airplane.

[C J Campbell]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> Don't bother, CJ will never believe anything about the Cirrus that goes
> against his predetermined belief that it is a horribly unsafe airplane.
>

I do not think the airplane is unsafe. I do think there are some training
issues that need to be addressed, particularly the evident tendency of some
pilots to take risks that they would not consider acceptable in other
aircraft. I do not think that inability to recover from a spin is a flaw,
either. Few airliners will recover from spins, but they have outstanding
safety records, despite their constant operation up in coffin corner. If you
can operate airliners there without falling out of the sky, then surely
Cirrus pilots can be taught to do the same.

I wonder if Borchert or Hilton (or anyone else, for that matter) can show
where a Cirrus did successfully recover from a spin without deploying the
parachute. Until then, I will stand by my assertion that it has not been
done.

The Cirrus accident record speaks for itself, but again, I do not think it
is the fault of the airplane. It seems to me to be basically a training
problem.

[C J Campbell]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > impossible to recover once a spin develops. There is not enough rudder
> > authority to recover. The Cirrus has never demonstrated a spin recovery,
> > though it has been tried. The only way the airplane could receive
> > certification was to require deployment of the parachute in the event of
a
> > spin.
>
> I didn't know this. Personally, I don't like the idea at all wouldn't
> buy a plane that can't be recovered by the standard procedure. But then,
> I'm maybe just old fashioned.

Then you probably would not like to fly in airliners, either.

[john smith]

To reaffirm some of what CJ is saying, you cannot spin if you do not
first stall. Avoid the stall and you avoid the spin. My question would
be, "Why are you opeating so close to stall to begin with?"
If you choose to operate there, you should anticipate the need for
immediate recovery.

C J Campbell wrote:
> I do not think the airplane is unsafe. I do think there are some training
> issues that need to be addressed, particularly the evident tendency of some
> pilots to take risks that they would not consider acceptable in other
> aircraft. I do not think that inability to recover from a spin is a flaw,
> either. Few airliners will recover from spins, but they have outstanding
> safety records, despite their constant operation up in coffin corner. If you
> can operate airliners there without falling out of the sky, then surely
> Cirrus pilots can be taught to do the same.
>
> I wonder if Borchert or Hilton (or anyone else, for that matter) can show
> where a Cirrus did successfully recover from a spin without deploying the
> parachute. Until then, I will stand by my assertion that it has not been
> done.
>
> The Cirrus accident record speaks for itself, but again, I do not think it
> is the fault of the airplane. It seems to me to be basically a training
> problem.
>
>

[Ace Pilot]

There's a William K. Graham listed as a certified training instructor
on the Cirrus Design web site. He's from San Diego. Anyone want to bet
that is the same guy in the article? If so, Mr. Graham is a CFI and is
instrument rated, which makes the description of the incident all that
more puzzling.

[Stefan]

C J Campbell wrote:

> Then you probably would not like to fly in airliners, either.

You're correct, I think flying in airliners is very boring.

My concerns weren't safety related. I think the Cirrus must be safe,
otherwise it wouldn't have been certified. As a pilot, I just want a
plane which can be controlled in every situation, spins included.

Stefan

[ArtP]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:29:49 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>C,
>
>> None of the Cirrus models will recover from a spin.
>>
>
>Here we go again. This statement is BS! And you know it!

What is correct is that, regardless of people who claim to know people
who tested the Cirrus spin recovery, Cirrus has not demonstrated to
the FAA that it can recover from a spin, and the Cirrus certification
is based upon the use of the chute so that it would not have to
demonstrate spin recovery (equivalent level of safety).

[C J Campbell]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> C,
>
> > None of the Cirrus models will recover from a spin.
> >
>
> Here we go again. This statement is BS! And you know it!

If it is BS, then show me one instance of a Cirrus recovering from a spin.

[zatatime]

>> CJ Campbell wrote

>> There is not enough rudder
>> authority to recover. The Cirrus has never demonstrated a spin recovery,
>> though it has been tried.
>

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:21:28 GMT, "Hilton" >
wrote:


>I don't believe either of these statements are correct - if you have
>references agreeing with you, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

>CJ Campbell

>I wonder if Borchert or Hilton (or anyone else, for that matter) can show
>where a Cirrus did successfully recover from a spin without deploying the
>parachute.


It's official folks. We have a Mexican standoff!

z

[C J Campbell]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
> > None of the Cirrus models will recover from a spin.
>
> Oh, baloney, Chris.

If it is baloney, show me even one single instance where a Cirrus recovered
from a spin.

[C J Campbell]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> >> CJ Campbell wrote
>
> >> There is not enough rudder
> >> authority to recover. The Cirrus has never demonstrated a spin
recovery,
> >> though it has been tried.
> >
>
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:21:28 GMT, "Hilton" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >I don't believe either of these statements are correct - if you have
> >references agreeing with you, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
>
> >CJ Campbell
>
> >I wonder if Borchert or Hilton (or anyone else, for that matter) can show
> >where a Cirrus did successfully recover from a spin without deploying the
> >parachute.
>
>
> It's official folks. We have a Mexican standoff!

Not really. You cannot prove that something has never happened. Try proving
that there are no UFOs or even tigers hiding in your yard, for example.
(Can't find any? That's because they are hiding!) However, if anyone will
kindly supply evidence of a Cirrus recovering from a spin without deploying
the parachute, I will happily accept it.

[C J Campbell]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Brenor,
>
> > or the pilot simply
> > followed the instructions to use the BSR in the event of a spin.
> >
>
> Actually, the instructions are to try conventional recovery techniques
> and THEN deploy the chute if they don't work. I wonder if that was
> done.

You continue to say this even though the manual does not. The manual
actually prohibits attempts at normal recovery and requires immediate
deployment of the BRS.

[Thomas Borchert]

ArtP,

> Cirrus has not demonstrated to
> the FAA that it can recover from a spin, and the Cirrus certification
> is based upon the use of the chute so that it would not have to
> demonstrate spin recovery (equivalent level of safety).
>

Yep. And your point is?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Stefan,

> As a pilot, I just want a
> plane which can be controlled in every situation,
>

Well, the accident statistics make pilots look pretty bad in that
regard.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> You cannot prove that something has never happened. However, if anyone will
> kindly supply evidence of a Cirrus recovering from a spin without deploying
> the parachute, I will happily accept it.
>

Well, if you cannot prove something has never happened, then I guess you
statement:

"None of the Cirrus models will recover from a spin."

means the burden of proof lies with you.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[C Kingsbury]

(StellaStar) wrote in message >...
> http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/9723097.htm
>
> I'm a bit concerned that I never heard about another recent deployment...
>
> "Still, the parachute system has not proven a cure-all, as evidenced by the
> Sept. 10 crash of a Cirrus SR22 in Park Falls, Wis. That crash claimed the life
> of Gerald Miller, 60, of Seboygan, Wis."
>
> It doesn't make clear whether the old fellow in Sheboygan deployed...

Well, I look at a BRS the same way I look at an ejection seat: as a
last-ditch system that gives you a fighting chance, not a guarantee.

In some cases, say some kind of structural failure or engine failure
over open water, it's a no-brainer. You pull the cord and become a
passenger.

What I'd wonder about, were I wealthy enough to have problems like
this, is what about more marginal cases. Let's say I'm flying up here
in densely populated New England, on top of an overcast at 4000' at
night, and the engine quits. Let's say I've got 1500' ceilings. Do I
pull the plug right away, or do I drop down through? How high do I
have to be for the chute to open properly? Anything I can do to
position myself so that the chute puts me down in that parking lot,
rather than on I-95, or into some hospital building?

Maybe I'm nuts for thinking about a bunch of highly unlikely
situations when there are a dozen other things ten times more likely
to kill me. who knows.

Best,
-cwk.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
> Stefan,
>
> > As a pilot, I just want a
> > plane which can be controlled in every situation,
>
> Well, the accident statistics make pilots look pretty bad in that
> regard.

If I stalled my aircraft in turbulence at my operational ceiling and got into a spin
part way down, it almost certainly wouldn't wind up in the stats at all. With a
Cirrus, it almost certainly *will* wind up in the stats. The accident statistics
aren't a valid indication of how well pilots do in this case.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[C J Campbell]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> C,
>
> > You cannot prove that something has never happened. However, if anyone
will
> > kindly supply evidence of a Cirrus recovering from a spin without
deploying
> > the parachute, I will happily accept it.
> >
>
> Well, if you cannot prove something has never happened, then I guess you
> statement:
>
> "None of the Cirrus models will recover from a spin."
>
> means the burden of proof lies with you.

Then there are tigers in your yard. Be careful that you do not get eaten.

[C J Campbell]

"Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
om...
> There's a William K. Graham listed as a certified training instructor
> on the Cirrus Design web site. He's from San Diego. Anyone want to bet
> that is the same guy in the article? If so, Mr. Graham is a CFI and is
> instrument rated, which makes the description of the incident all that
> more puzzling.

Not really. He did exactly what I would expect a flight instructor to do.
When he got into an emergency, he followed the manual, not the theories of a
bunch of armchair pilots on Usenet who think they know better than the
aircraft designer on what to do when a Cirrus spins.

The only real question is why he was flying there in the first place, which
has nothing to do with whether he was flying a Cirrus -- a point that is
lost on some around here.

[Montblack]

("Ace Pilot" wrote)
> There's a William K. Graham listed as a certified training instructor
> on the Cirrus Design web site. He's from San Diego. Anyone want to bet
> that is the same guy in the article? If so, Mr. Graham is a CFI and is
> instrument rated, which makes the description of the incident all that
> more puzzling.


From the Duluth News Tribune story - reporting on the Sept 10th Park
Falls, Wisconsin crash.

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/9723097.htm

Byron "Buzz" Oyster, a flight instructor from Duluth who was also in the
plane, sustained critical injuries and remains hospitalized at St.
Joseph Hospital in Marshfield, Wis. His condition was listed as "fair"
Tuesday.


Flight instructor from Duluth? Wonder if this fellow is connected with
the factory?


Montblack

[Newps]

> Stefan,
>
>
>>As a pilot, I just want a
>>plane which can be controlled in every situation,

No such animal.

[Montblack]

("C Kingsbury" wrote)
<snip>
> What I'd wonder about, were I wealthy enough to have problems like
> this, is what about more marginal cases. Let's say I'm flying up here
> in densely populated New England, on top of an overcast at 4000' at
> night, and the engine quits. Let's say I've got 1500' ceilings. Do I
> pull the plug right away, or do I drop down through? How high do I
> have to be for the chute to open properly? Anything I can do to
> position myself so that the chute puts me down in that parking lot,
> rather than on I-95, or into some hospital building?


From the Cirrus web page:
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/servicecenters/TechPubs/pdf/POH/SR20%20-003/html/pohmain.asp

(Same link as above)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T27445959

(I put you in an SR20. Hope that's ok)

SR20 POH
Section 3 - Emergency Procedures (randomly cut/pasted)


Emergency Landing (Engine-out):
Flaps
Up................................................ ......................
........86 KIAS
Flaps
50%............................................... ......................
......81 KIAS
Flaps
100%.............................................. ......................
.....75 KIAS

Maximum Glide Ratio ~ 10.9 : 1

.. Note .
With a seized or failed engine, the distance that the airplane
will glide will be more than the distance it would glide with the
engine at idle, such as during training.

If the propeller is windmilling, some additional glide range may
be achieved by moving the Power Lever to idle and increasing
airspeed by 5 to 10 knots.

(Cirrus Airplane Parachute System - CAPS)
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.

(V-PD) Maximum Demonstrated Parachute Deployment Speed is
the maximum speed at which parachute deployment has
been demonstrated.

The maximum demonstrated deployment speed is 135 KIAS.
Reducing airspeed allows minimum parachute loads and prevents
structural overload and possible parachute failure.


Bon voyage :-)

Montblack

[gwengler]

"Hilton" > wrote in message et>...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > There is not enough rudder
> > authority to recover. The Cirrus has never demonstrated a spin recovery,
> > though it has been tried.
>
> I don't believe either of these statements are correct - if you have
> references agreeing with you, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
>
> In fact, the SR22 POH says: "If time and altitude permit, the following
> procedures may be used to determine whether the aircraft is in a recoverable
> spiral/incipient spin or is unrecoverable and, therefore, has departed
> controlled flight." It then goes on to give the spin recovery checklist:
>
> 1. Power Lever .................IDLE
> 2. Control Yoke ............... Neutral
> 3. Rudder ......................... Briskly Apply Opposite Yaw/Spin
> Direction
>
> Hilton

Please provide us with the location of the above quote from the SR22
POH. The POH is on-line here:
www.cirrusdesign.com/servicecenters/TechPubs/pdf/POH/sr22/html/pohmain.asp
I found this: "Do not waste time and altitude trying to recover from
a spiral/spin before activating CAPS." (Section 3, Page 3-20)

Gerd
ATP

[Dan Luke]

"C J Campbell" wrote:
>>
>> "C J Campbell" wrote:
>> > None of the Cirrus models will recover from a spin.
>>
>> Oh, baloney, Chris.
>
> If it is baloney, show me even one single instance where a Cirrus
> recovered
> from a spin.

<sigh> All right, I'll start digging. I know I've read that CD factory
pilots have recovered from spins many times: I'll find it. And BTW,
why are spin recovery procedures given in the POH?

Meanwhile, what backup have you got for your assertion that "None of the
Cirrus models will recover from a spin?" Certification standards
applied to the airplanes don't count.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Mike Beede]

In article >, Dan Luke > wrote:

> <sigh> All right, I'll start digging. I know I've read that CD factory
> pilots have recovered from spins many times: I'll find it. And BTW,
> why are spin recovery procedures given in the POH?

This is apparently one of those questions like "what color was Grant's
gray horse." There aren't any spin recovery procedures in at least a
three year old SR-20 POH. It says the only recovery method is to deploy
the chute.

Have they added procedures to newer handbooks?

Mike Beede

[C J Campbell]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
> >>
> >> "C J Campbell" wrote:
> >> > None of the Cirrus models will recover from a spin.
> >>
> >> Oh, baloney, Chris.
> >
> > If it is baloney, show me even one single instance where a Cirrus
> > recovered
> > from a spin.
>
> <sigh> All right, I'll start digging. I know I've read that CD factory
> pilots have recovered from spins many times: I'll find it. And BTW,
> why are spin recovery procedures given in the POH?
>

Early manuals gave a theoretical method of spin recovery, but it has been
removed. The POH specifically says that the Cirrus has not been tested for
spin recovery, that intentional spins and recoveries are prohibited, and
that the only method approved for accidental spin recovery is deployment of
the BRS. Sounds an awful lot like "won't recover from a spin and has never
demonstrated recovery from a spin" to me.

[C J Campbell]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> Meanwhile, what backup have you got for your assertion that "None of the
> Cirrus models will recover from a spin?" Certification standards
> applied to the airplanes don't count.

All of the manuals contain language similar to the following:
Spins

The SR20 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 “departs controlled flight”, the CAPS

must be deployed.

While the stall characteristics of the SR20 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.

• WARNING •

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

[C J Campbell]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > There is not enough rudder
> > authority to recover. The Cirrus has never demonstrated a spin recovery,
> > though it has been tried.
>
> I don't believe either of these statements are correct - if you have
> references agreeing with you, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
>
> In fact, the SR22 POH says: "If time and altitude permit, the following
> procedures may be used to determine whether the aircraft is in a
recoverable
> spiral/incipient spin or is unrecoverable and, therefore, has departed
> controlled flight." It then goes on to give the spin recovery checklist:
>
> 1. Power Lever .................IDLE
> 2. Control Yoke ............... Neutral
> 3. Rudder ......................... Briskly Apply Opposite Yaw/Spin
> Direction

It does not say that. What it says is:

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 “departs controlled flight,” 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.

• WARNING •

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

[Dave Russell]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...

<-snip->
>That wing will have a higher
> angle of attack than the other; it will stall without warning and the
> airplane will immediately begin to roll into a spin, possibly even inverted.
<-snip->

Remember, it's not really established in the spin until you've made at
least a couple of turns (it's all about inertia). A simple wing drop
and roll/yaw excursion is just a spin entry or incipient spin. The
question about the Cirrus' recovery characteristics is still open
IMHO. If you manage to get the airplane stalled and drop a wing in a
big way, will it still just fly out of the stall if you apply
aggressive forward stick? How about after a half turn? What about a
full turn?

While it's possible that the airplane will not recover from a
developed spin, that does not mean to me that one couldn't recover
from a stall-wing-drop-roll scenario with just an authoritative push
and roll to upright. (Ever crossed over from an upright to inverted
spin by using a 'normal' entry and then driving the nose through as
the wings roll knife-edge? If you're not positive on the controls, it
can just wallow along and fall out into a mushy dive.)

-Dave Russell
8KCAB

The old fashioned way works fine for me.... strap the 'chute to your
ass instead of the airplane. It makes the "pull or not to pull"
question easy (if you are in free-fall, pull).

[Ace Pilot]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
> om...
> > There's a William K. Graham listed as a certified training instructor
> > on the Cirrus Design web site. He's from San Diego. Anyone want to bet
> > that is the same guy in the article? If so, Mr. Graham is a CFI and is
> > instrument rated, which makes the description of the incident all that
> > more puzzling.
>
> Not really. He did exactly what I would expect a flight instructor to do.
> When he got into an emergency, he followed the manual, not the theories of a
> bunch of armchair pilots on Usenet who think they know better than the
> aircraft designer on what to do when a Cirrus spins.

So you don't find an IFR-rated flight instructor going into a spin
during cruise flight puzzling?

[C J Campbell]

"Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > There's a William K. Graham listed as a certified training instructor
> > > on the Cirrus Design web site. He's from San Diego. Anyone want to bet
> > > that is the same guy in the article? If so, Mr. Graham is a CFI and is
> > > instrument rated, which makes the description of the incident all that
> > > more puzzling.
> >
> > Not really. He did exactly what I would expect a flight instructor to
do.
> > When he got into an emergency, he followed the manual, not the theories
of a
> > bunch of armchair pilots on Usenet who think they know better than the
> > aircraft designer on what to do when a Cirrus spins.
>
> So you don't find an IFR-rated flight instructor going into a spin
> during cruise flight puzzling?

No. Not in severe turbulence. Note that he was descending rapidly because of
the turbulence. If he was attempting to maintain a level attitude he would
have had a very high angle of attack, probably much higher than he realized.
The Cirrus is more stall and spin resistant than most airplanes, but it is
not invulnerable. What I find curious is that a flight instructor flew into
there in the first place, but I have to admit having flown into conditions
that I should not have, too. Hopefully we learn from our mistakes. It is
probably asking too much that we never make mistakes in the first place. It
is too bad he lost the airplane, but I think the performance of the Cirrus
in this incident was commendable. It saved his butt when he went poking his
nose where he shouldn't. I can think of a few other airplanes that might
have broken up in flight under similar circumstances.

[C J Campbell]

"Dave Russell" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
>
> <-snip->
> >That wing will have a higher
> > angle of attack than the other; it will stall without warning and the
> > airplane will immediately begin to roll into a spin, possibly even
inverted.
> <-snip->
>
> Remember, it's not really established in the spin until you've made at
> least a couple of turns (it's all about inertia). A simple wing drop
> and roll/yaw excursion is just a spin entry or incipient spin. The
> question about the Cirrus' recovery characteristics is still open
> IMHO. If you manage to get the airplane stalled and drop a wing in a
> big way, will it still just fly out of the stall if you apply
> aggressive forward stick? How about after a half turn? What about a
> full turn?
>
> While it's possible that the airplane will not recover from a
> developed spin, that does not mean to me that one couldn't recover
> from a stall-wing-drop-roll scenario with just an authoritative push
> and roll to upright. (Ever crossed over from an upright to inverted
> spin by using a 'normal' entry and then driving the nose through as
> the wings roll knife-edge? If you're not positive on the controls, it
> can just wallow along and fall out into a mushy dive.)
>

Right. It is not necessarily true that a stall will result in a spin. The
Cirrus requires considerable force to enter a spin. It can be done, as was
demonstrated, but it is not easy. I don't think it is far wrong to say that
some other planes would break up in flight if subjected to the same types of
forces. In this case the buffeting was so severe that the pilot probably had
little to no control over the airplane. Stalls are usually benign and the
ailerons remain effective throughout a normal stall.

Cirrus training now emphasizes using CAPS the moment that the airplane
enters a spiral or spin. The maneuver limitations say this:

Maneuver Limits

Aerobatic maneuvers, including spins, are prohibited.

.. Note .

Because the SR22 has not been certified for spin recovery, the Cirrus
Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) must be deployed if the airplane departs
controlled flight. Refer to Section 3 - Emergency Procedures, Inadvertent
Spiral/Spin Entry.

This airplane is certified in the normal category and is not designed for
aerobatic operations. Only those operations incidental to normal flight are
approved. These operations include normal stalls, chandelles, lazy eights,
and turns in which the angle of bank is limited to 60°.

Cirrus does have procedures for practicing and recovering from stalls:

Stalls

SR22 stall characteristics are conventional. Power-off stalls may be
accompanied by a slight nose bobbing if full aft stick is held. Power-on
stalls are marked by a high sink rate at full aft stick. Power-off stall
speeds at maximum weight for both forward and aft C.G. positions are
presented in Section 5 - Performance Data.

When practicing stalls at altitude, as the airspeed is slowly reduced, you
will notice a slight airframe buffet and hear the stall speed warning horn
sound between 5 and 10 knots before the stall. Normally, the stall is marked
by a gentle nose drop and the wings can easily be held level or in the bank
with coordinated use of the ailerons and rudder. Upon stall warning in
flight, recovery is accomplished by immediately by reducing back pressure to
maintain safe airspeed, adding power if necessary and rolling wings level
with coordinated use of the controls.

.. WARNING .

Extreme care must be taken to avoid uncoordinated, accelerated or abused
control inputs when close to the stall, especially when close to the ground.

[Ryan Ferguson]

C J Campbell wrote:
> Cirrus models will recover from a spin. The only spin recovery
> method in the manual is to deploy the parachute.

BOGUS INFORMATION ALERT!

[Ryan Ferguson]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Stefan,
>
>
>>I didn't know this.
>>
>
>
> Because it is not true.

Thomas, you're absolutely correct. I hope folks wake up to the fact
that CJ really has no clue as to what he's talking about when it comes
to matters Cirri. I've personally talked with test pilots who flew the
Cirrus SR-20 and 22 during certification. They're not walking on the
rooftops and shouting this statement, but the Cirrus SR-22 will recover
conventionally from many multi-turn spin scenarios. The chute provided
an alternative method of compliance which saved the company many
millions of dollars and months of certification effort at a point where
saving money and time was critically important to the longevity of the
company. That is the only reason it is included in the spin recovery
procedure. The current AFM procedure is to FIRST attempt conventional
spin recovery techniques, and if those fail, to deploy the chute.

Cirrus is understandably mute on this issue due to liability concerns.
Until conventional recovery is approved (if ever), they will NEVER say,
"Sure, the airplane will recover normally from spins!" I've never spun
a 20 or 22 and I have no intention of ever doing so, because spins are a
prohibited maneuver per the AFM. But wake up and engage the noggin,
folks, if you think this airplane is somehow magically incapable of
recovering from spins!

-Ryan
ATP/Cirrus Standardized Instructor

[Ryan Ferguson]

C J Campbell wrote:

> Early manuals gave a theoretical method of spin recovery, but it has been
> removed. The POH specifically says that the Cirrus has not been tested for
> spin recovery, that intentional spins and recoveries are prohibited, and
> that the only method approved for accidental spin recovery is deployment of
> the BRS. Sounds an awful lot like "won't recover from a spin and has never
> demonstrated recovery from a spin" to me.

Nope, that's completely bogus. I have no idea why you insist on
disseminating bad information about the airplane.

The BRS is the only CERTIFIED method of recovery from an accidental
spin. Conventional spin recovery techniques are recommended prior to
BRS deployment. As such they are 'approved.'

The airplane has spun plenty of times during development.

-Ryan

[Ryan Ferguson]

C J Campbell wrote:

> You continue to say this even though the manual does not. The manual
> actually prohibits attempts at normal recovery and requires immediate
> deployment of the BRS.

Actually, the manual does say that - quite clearly, in fact.

Where's your Cirrus instructor kit - with the SR-20 and 22 IMs?

They state this quite clearly. You should be up to snuff on this if you
give as much 'advice' on the Cirrus product line as you have been lately.

[Ace Pilot]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > There's a William K. Graham listed as a certified training instructor
> > > > on the Cirrus Design web site. He's from San Diego. Anyone want to bet
> > > > that is the same guy in the article? If so, Mr. Graham is a CFI and is
> > > > instrument rated, which makes the description of the incident all that
> > > > more puzzling.
> > >
> > > Not really. He did exactly what I would expect a flight instructor to
> do.
> > > When he got into an emergency, he followed the manual, not the theories
> of a
> > > bunch of armchair pilots on Usenet who think they know better than the
> > > aircraft designer on what to do when a Cirrus spins.
> >
> > So you don't find an IFR-rated flight instructor going into a spin
> > during cruise flight puzzling?
>
> No. Not in severe turbulence. Note that he was descending rapidly because of
> the turbulence. If he was attempting to maintain a level attitude he would
> have had a very high angle of attack, probably much higher than he realized.
> The Cirrus is more stall and spin resistant than most airplanes, but it is
> not invulnerable. What I find curious is that a flight instructor flew into
> there in the first place, but I have to admit having flown into conditions
> that I should not have, too. Hopefully we learn from our mistakes. It is
> probably asking too much that we never make mistakes in the first place. It
> is too bad he lost the airplane, but I think the performance of the Cirrus
> in this incident was commendable. It saved his butt when he went poking his
> nose where he shouldn't. I can think of a few other airplanes that might
> have broken up in flight under similar circumstances.

Now I see why you aren't puzzled and I am. The article mentions
turbulence, but I have it on good authority that the incident occurred
in smooth air. We're operating from different data sources.

I'm starting to think that the incident may have a mechanical cause,
based on what I've been told, but we'll have to wait and see.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Ryan Ferguson > posted:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> You continue to say this even though the manual does not. The manual
>> actually prohibits attempts at normal recovery and requires immediate
>> deployment of the BRS.
>
> Actually, the manual does say that - quite clearly, in fact.
>
> Where's your Cirrus instructor kit - with the SR-20 and 22 IMs?
>
> They state this quite clearly. You should be up to snuff on this if
> you give as much 'advice' on the Cirrus product line as you have been
> lately.
>
What I find puzzling is the contradictory statements about what is in the
manual. In another thread, "Cirrus Spin Recovery", the spin recovery
portion of the SR22 manual is directly quoted. There is *no* mention of
normal recovery, and very discouraging language about even trying to
recover normally. C J's statement is thus supported, while others who say
that their manuals include a normal recover procedure are in conflict (I
know what *I'd* do if I wound up spinning a Cirrus, since both manuals
agree on the deployment of the CAPS at some point).

Neil

[ArtP]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:34:14 GMT, Ryan Ferguson >
wrote:

>Cirrus is understandably mute on this issue due to liability concerns.
>Until conventional recovery is approved (if ever), they will NEVER say,
>"Sure, the airplane will recover normally from spins!" I've never spun
>a 20 or 22 and I have no intention of ever doing so, because spins are a
>prohibited maneuver per the AFM. But wake up and engage the noggin,
>folks, if you think this airplane is somehow magically incapable of
>recovering from spins!

Any pilot who ignores the POH because some guy on the internet said so
richly deserves the Darwin award they are likely to receive.

[Bob Moore]

john smith wrote

> To reaffirm some of what CJ is saying, you cannot spin if you do not
> first stall. Avoid the stall and you avoid the spin. My question would
> be, "Why are you opeating so close to stall to begin with?"

Because they probably believed, as does most of this newsgroup,
(certainly not me) that flying at Va in turbulence is safer
than flying at Vno.

Bob Moore

[ArtP]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:59:04 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>What I find puzzling is the contradictory statements about what is in the
>manual. In another thread, "Cirrus Spin Recovery", the spin recovery
>portion of the SR22 manual is directly quoted. There is *no* mention of
>normal recovery, and very discouraging language about even trying to
>recover normally. C J's statement is thus supported, while others who say
>that their manuals include a normal recover procedure are in conflict (I
>know what *I'd* do if I wound up spinning a Cirrus, since both manuals
>agree on the deployment of the CAPS at some point).

The original manuals did mention standard recovery for spirals and
incipient spins (spins which are about to start). Apparently too many
people did not understand the word incipient and read this to mean
normal spin recovery was possible. The manuals were updated and all
references to spin recovery other than CAPS were removed.

[C J Campbell]

"Ryan Ferguson" > wrote in message
.. .
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > Cirrus models will recover from a spin. The only spin recovery
> > method in the manual is to deploy the parachute.
>
> BOGUS INFORMATION ALERT!

Even Cirrus says they have never spun the airplane. If you have information
otherwise, please show it to us.

[C J Campbell]

"Ryan Ferguson" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > You continue to say this even though the manual does not. The manual
> > actually prohibits attempts at normal recovery and requires immediate
> > deployment of the BRS.
>
> Actually, the manual does say that - quite clearly, in fact.
>
> Where's your Cirrus instructor kit - with the SR-20 and 22 IMs?
>
> They state this quite clearly. You should be up to snuff on this if you
> give as much 'advice' on the Cirrus product line as you have been lately.

You obviously are not "up to snuff" yourself and using outdated information.

[C J Campbell]

"Ryan Ferguson" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
> > Stefan,
> >
> >
> >>I didn't know this.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Because it is not true.
>
> Thomas, you're absolutely correct. I hope folks wake up to the fact
> that CJ really has no clue as to what he's talking about when it comes
> to matters Cirri. I've personally talked with test pilots who flew the
> Cirrus SR-20 and 22 during certification.

Really? What were their names? When did you talk to them? And why are you
disputing what the manual, which is available on Cirrus' own web site,
clearly says? The sections of the manual that I have quoted were cut and
pasted from Cirrus' web site.

[Javier Henderson]

"C J Campbell" > writes:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "C J Campbell" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "C J Campbell" wrote:
> > >> > None of the Cirrus models will recover from a spin.
> > >>
> > >> Oh, baloney, Chris.
> > >
> > > If it is baloney, show me even one single instance where a Cirrus
> > > recovered
> > > from a spin.
> >
> > <sigh> All right, I'll start digging. I know I've read that CD factory
> > pilots have recovered from spins many times: I'll find it. And BTW,
> > why are spin recovery procedures given in the POH?
> >
>
> Early manuals gave a theoretical method of spin recovery, but it has been
> removed. The POH specifically says that the Cirrus has not been tested for
> spin recovery, that intentional spins and recoveries are prohibited, and
> that the only method approved for accidental spin recovery is deployment of
> the BRS. Sounds an awful lot like "won't recover from a spin and has never
> demonstrated recovery from a spin" to me.

A) It has been spun.

B) It's being spun again for certification overseas.

But don't let facts get in the way of your usual anti Cirrus diatribe.

-jav

[Dave Russell]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
>
> Right. It is not necessarily true that a stall will result in a spin. The
> Cirrus requires considerable force to enter a spin. It can be done, as was
> demonstrated, but it is not easy. I don't think it is far wrong to say that
> some other planes would break up in flight if subjected to the same types of
> forces.

What?!?!

Last time I checked, the Cirrus was only certified to the same limits
as everybody else's airplanes. Why should it hang together better
than everyone else's? (And if you think they designed in an extra
3g's and didn't tell anybody about it, I've got a bridge to sell you.)

And why do the spins require "considerable force"? Force on what?
The wing is stalled (or very nearly so), meaning not too much stress
on them, at least. I bet one can pitch up to, say 30 degrees above
the horizon with a bunch of nose-up trim, then let go of everything
and she'll stall right out from under you with no pilot input at all!
Once you've got that down, try giving her a big boot full of left
rudder and hammer in the throttle just as she breaks. I'd bet she'll
do a very pretty spin entry from there.... 8-> (And, btw, there's
really very little stress on the airframe when you do this. Otoh, it
might be stressful for the pilot.)

[Ryan Ferguson]

C J Campbell wrote:

> "Ryan Ferguson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You continue to say this even though the manual does not. The manual
>>>actually prohibits attempts at normal recovery and requires immediate
>>>deployment of the BRS.
>>
>>Actually, the manual does say that - quite clearly, in fact.
>>
>>Where's your Cirrus instructor kit - with the SR-20 and 22 IMs?
>>
>>They state this quite clearly. You should be up to snuff on this if you
>>give as much 'advice' on the Cirrus product line as you have been lately.
>
>
> You obviously are not "up to snuff" yourself and using outdated information.


LOL! My manuals are dated April, 2004.

[Ryan Ferguson]

ArtP wrote:

> The original manuals did mention standard recovery for spirals and
> incipient spins (spins which are about to start). Apparently too many
> people did not understand the word incipient and read this to mean
> normal spin recovery was possible. The manuals were updated and all
> references to spin recovery other than CAPS were removed.

I won't refute that yet, but I think it's wrong. I think exactly the
reverse trend has occurred and reference to normal spin recovery
techniques were added... not removed. But I'll check in at work Sunday
and snag a couple of POHs ranging over the past couple of years to check.

You can't blame Cirrus for being silent - it's damned if they do, damned
if they don't. They have a proven, certified method for spin recovery.
Someone will fumble the ball and go down using botched 'normal'
recovery inputs and then Cirrus will have hell to pay. No, they're not
going to come out and say anything other than "The chute is the only
method we've demonstrated for spin recovery!"

[Ryan Ferguson]

ArtP wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:34:14 GMT, Ryan Ferguson >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Cirrus is understandably mute on this issue due to liability concerns.
>>Until conventional recovery is approved (if ever), they will NEVER say,
>>"Sure, the airplane will recover normally from spins!" I've never spun
>>a 20 or 22 and I have no intention of ever doing so, because spins are a
>>prohibited maneuver per the AFM. But wake up and engage the noggin,
>>folks, if you think this airplane is somehow magically incapable of
>>recovering from spins!
>
>
> Any pilot who ignores the POH because some guy on the internet said so
> richly deserves the Darwin award they are likely to receive.

Amen to that, Art. I hope that pilots will reference the proper
information for the airplane - and use some common sense - in any
emergency scenario.

-Ryan

[Ryan Ferguson]

C J Campbell wrote:

> Really? What were their names? When did you talk to them? And why are you
> disputing what the manual, which is available on Cirrus' own web site,
> clearly says? The sections of the manual that I have quoted were cut and
> pasted from Cirrus' web site.

What you've ostensibly cut and pasted does not match any of my
materials, which are dated April, 2004.

[Ryan Ferguson]

C J Campbell wrote:

>>They state this quite clearly. You should be up to snuff on this if you
>>give as much 'advice' on the Cirrus product line as you have been lately.
>
>
> You obviously are not "up to snuff" yourself and using outdated information.

Ha! CJ, fact-finding's just not your game. You apparently missed a
glaring, boldface disclaimer at:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/serviceandupgrades/pilotoperators/

.... which states:

Note: Online POH data is for reference only and subject to change.

Not only that, opening up the PDF, it's clearly old - an early revision.
I will compare to my current and updated POH when I get my grubby
mitts on it again next week.

-Ryan

[Bill Denton]

Thin "time", "attitude" and "deployment window". It amazes me that no one
manages to think of these two critical pieces whenever this topic comes up.





"Ryan Ferguson" > wrote in message
...
> ArtP wrote:
>
> > The original manuals did mention standard recovery for spirals and
> > incipient spins (spins which are about to start). Apparently too many
> > people did not understand the word incipient and read this to mean
> > normal spin recovery was possible. The manuals were updated and all
> > references to spin recovery other than CAPS were removed.
>
> I won't refute that yet, but I think it's wrong. I think exactly the
> reverse trend has occurred and reference to normal spin recovery
> techniques were added... not removed. But I'll check in at work Sunday
> and snag a couple of POHs ranging over the past couple of years to check.
>
> You can't blame Cirrus for being silent - it's damned if they do, damned
> if they don't. They have a proven, certified method for spin recovery.
> Someone will fumble the ball and go down using botched 'normal'
> recovery inputs and then Cirrus will have hell to pay. No, they're not
> going to come out and say anything other than "The chute is the only
> method we've demonstrated for spin recovery!"

[C J Campbell]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
..
>
> A) It has been spun.

When, and by whom? Show me the data.

>
> B) It's being spun again for certification overseas.

Fine for you to say that, but again why should I believe you instead of
Cirrus?

>
> But don't let facts get in the way of your usual anti Cirrus diatribe.

Who says I am anti-Cirrus? The Cirrus manual says the airplane cannot
recover from a spin except by deploying CAPS. Is Cirrus anti-Cirrus?

[C J Campbell]

"Ryan Ferguson" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > "Ryan Ferguson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>C J Campbell wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>You continue to say this even though the manual does not. The manual
> >>>actually prohibits attempts at normal recovery and requires immediate
> >>>deployment of the BRS.
> >>
> >>Actually, the manual does say that - quite clearly, in fact.
> >>
> >>Where's your Cirrus instructor kit - with the SR-20 and 22 IMs?
> >>
> >>They state this quite clearly. You should be up to snuff on this if you
> >>give as much 'advice' on the Cirrus product line as you have been
lately.
> >

First of all, I would be interested in seeing any 'advice' that I have given
that was not posted on Cirrus' own web site.

> >
> > You obviously are not "up to snuff" yourself and using outdated
information.
>
>
> LOL! My manuals are dated April, 2004.

If you have more recent information, my apologies.

However, I still feel that this criticism of the pilot in this case, who was
merely following the instructions in his manual, is entirely unjustified. If
it makes me anti-Cirrus to quote Cirrus, then I suppose Cirrus is
anti-Cirrus, too. I note further down that some people think I may be too
pro- Cirrus.

The bottom line is that I really don't give a hoot what anyone thinks -- I
am going to use the best and most recent information that I have. If
somebody like you comes up with more recent information, I will use that, no
matter what I think of you personally. However, given that you began with a
wholly unwarranted personal attack, I will have to treat your assertions
with a certain amount of skepticism until I can verify them with Cirrus
personally.

[Javier Henderson]

"C J Campbell" > writes:

> "Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
> ...
> .
> >
> > A) It has been spun.
>
> When, and by whom? Show me the data.

It's been posted here before. Factory test pilots.

> > B) It's being spun again for certification overseas.
>
> Fine for you to say that, but again why should I believe you instead of
> Cirrus?

Er... OK, well, it is being done, sorry it doesn't fit your agenda though.

Hey, have the rest of this thread, you're on a crusade and nothing will
convince you otherwise.

Well, at least you dropped that stupid argument about the airframe
lifetime limitation.

-jav

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
C J Campbell > wrote:
>
[snip]

>Who says I am anti-Cirrus? The Cirrus manual says the airplane cannot
>recover from a spin except by deploying CAPS. Is Cirrus anti-Cirrus?
>
The following was quoted elsewhere in the thread:

(Cirrus Airplane Parachute System - CAPS) 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.

This does not say "don't even thing of trying". It notes the need for
prompt action at lower altitudes. If one is two miles up, one can
take a moment to try to recover and still have room to deploy.

Pray cite exactly where, in the Cirrus manual, it says that a spin
is irrecoverable without using CAPS? Until you can back up your
peculiar claim, you are trying to blow smoke up our posterior
orifices, and that dog don't hunt.

yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[C J Campbell]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > writes:
>
> > "Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > .
> > >
> > > A) It has been spun.
> >
> > When, and by whom? Show me the data.
>
> It's been posted here before. Factory test pilots.

Oh, very well. I guess the manual and the pilot who used the CAPS to save
his life were wrong. That makes Cirrus and the pilot anti-Cirrus, too, which
I think puts me in pretty good company.

If the data had really been posted here before you would have been able to
come up with it.

[C J Campbell]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
> Howdy!
>
> In article >,
> C J Campbell > wrote:
> >
> [snip]
>
> >Who says I am anti-Cirrus? The Cirrus manual says the airplane cannot
> >recover from a spin except by deploying CAPS. Is Cirrus anti-Cirrus?
> >
> The following was quoted elsewhere in the thread:
>
> (Cirrus Airplane Parachute System - CAPS) 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.
>
> This does not say "don't even thing of trying". It notes the need for
> prompt action at lower altitudes. If one is two miles up, one can
> take a moment to try to recover and still have room to deploy.
>
> Pray cite exactly where, in the Cirrus manual, it says that a spin
> is irrecoverable without using CAPS? Until you can back up your
> peculiar claim, you are trying to blow smoke up our posterior
> orifices, and that dog don't hunt.
>

I would never think of blowing smoke up your particular orifice, Michael.

The following was quoted elsewhere on the thread:

"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 “departs
controlled flight,” the CAPS must be deployed."

Now, Mr. Ferguson is the only person who has been kind enough to point out
that this may be outdated (though not without being rather abusive about
it), but it is still on Cirrus' web site and it remains the best official
information that I have.

If you clowns want to argue that the pilot in this case should not have
followed the instructions in his flight manual then I guess I really don't
know what to say, other than that I think you are idiots. I would be happy
to go up with anyone in his Cirrus and we can see if it will recover from a
spin without CAPS.

[C J Campbell]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
>
> Er... OK, well, it is being done, sorry it doesn't fit your agenda though.
>
> Hey, have the rest of this thread, you're on a crusade and nothing will
> convince you otherwise.
>

My only crusade is to get people to follow the manufacturer's
recommendations. My agenda is to take over the world by three o'clock this
afternoon, so I better get busy.

> Well, at least you dropped that stupid argument about the airframe
> lifetime limitation.

I dropped the argument when Cirrus got its extension, which is when I said I
would drop it.

[Matthew Chidester]

we had cirrus open house come to salt lake city and give some local CFI's a
test ride - talked to the test pilots and it was the same. You get in a
spin you pull the chute. Aircraft is not certified for spins (something
about aft CG)

I don't see the big deal - follow the POH. My question on the accident is
what was a pilot doing up there that high above 12,500 did he have oxygen?
Also he was close on the operation limits and if he was heavy (overloaded)
he could have easily gone in a stall/spin including heavy turbulence..if I
got in a spin yeah I *might* try and get out of the spin but I wouldn't
waste time pulling that chute.

in the end we'll just wait and see on the NTSB report (someone post it when
it shows up)

Matthew

[ArtP]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:07:51 GMT, "Matthew Chidester"
> wrote:

>My question on the accident is
>what was a pilot doing up there that high above 12,500 did he have oxygen?
>Also he was close on the operation limits and if he was heavy (overloaded)
>he could have easily gone in a stall/spin including heavy turbulence.

The 310hp SR-22 17,500 foot ceiling is a certified ceiling not a
service ceiling. It is actually 500 feet less than the 200hp SR-20
ceiling, so I doubt that the problems with the plane were caused by
being close to it climb limit. I don't know whether that plane had
oxygen, but it is a factory option.

[Matthew Chidester]

> The 310hp SR-22 17,500 foot ceiling is a certified ceiling not a
> service ceiling. It is actually 500 feet less than the 200hp SR-20
> ceiling, so I doubt that the problems with the plane were caused by
> being close to it climb limit. I don't know whether that plane had
> oxygen, but it is a factory option.

huh I didn't know they had an option on oxygen - that's a LONG way down -
interesting, well like I said should be an interesting NTSB report thanks
for the info

[Ryan Ferguson]

> If you have more recent information, my apologies.
>
> However, I still feel that this criticism of the pilot in this case, who was
> merely following the instructions in his manual, is entirely unjustified. If
> it makes me anti-Cirrus to quote Cirrus, then I suppose Cirrus is
> anti-Cirrus, too. I note further down that some people think I may be too
> pro- Cirrus.
>
> The bottom line is that I really don't give a hoot what anyone thinks -- I
> am going to use the best and most recent information that I have. If
> somebody like you comes up with more recent information, I will use that, no
> matter what I think of you personally. However, given that you began with a
> wholly unwarranted personal attack, I will have to treat your assertions
> with a certain amount of skepticism until I can verify them with Cirrus
> personally.

Look - no personal attack, I'm just tired of inaccurate statements,
intended or not. Let's skip the BS with the AFM and focus on what
matters. My view on this entire matter can be summed up thusly: it's
just as incorrect to state that the SR series *won't* recover from
spins (whether they're of the incipient or fully developed variety) as
it is to say that they *will.* I've never claimed that Cirrus
certified the aircraft to spin, nor have I claimed the company has
demonstrated (to the FAA's satisfaction, anyway) that normal spin
recovery inputs will be effective in the event of inadvertent spin
entry. This is an exercise in using precision in communication. We
should all agree that only correct statement is as follows: activation
of CAPS is the only demonstrated and certified method of recovering
from a spin.

And to answer your other question: Yes... one of Cirrus' product
managers, visiting from Duluth, upon my employer's activation of our
Cirrus Standardized Training Center designation, verified to me
personally -- in front of a crowd of flight instructors -- during one
our initial meetings on the Cirrus product line, that the airplane has
been spun on many occasions during testing and certification, with as
many as three turns prior to recovery. (Hot topic among us as a group
that day... !) That 'fact' will never be anything more than anecdotal
information in the face of the AFM's recommendations. It is not an
implicit endorsement of the airplane's spin recovery characteristics.
It is not an implicit recommendation to disregard the AFM's admonition
that CAPS deployment is the only approved method of spin recovery as
demonstrated during certification. If you think you're going to call
Cirrus on the phone and get someone to tell you the airplane was
successfully spun during flight testing, you've got another think
coming. There's no way in hell they'll say that unless they have a
damn good reason to do so. It's not hard to understand or believe
that many guidelines, recommendations, and procedures listed in the
AFM are driven at least in part by marketing and legal concerns,
rather than engineering or flight test conclusions. A logical person
should be able to internalize this when considering issues such as
these. John Deakin has done much excellent work at AVWeb.com
debunking many inaccurate "official" publications that pilots treat as
gospel, such as engine manufacturer's operating guidelines and even
Pilot Operating Handbook procedures. This is nothing new.

My main contention is with your statement that the SR-22 and SR-20
"won't" recover from a spin. That is an incorrect, or inaccurate if
you prefer, statement based on the facts. It's just as bad as saying
"Sure, they'll recover from spins!" If you stop making that
statement, I'll be a happy camper. You can criticize Cirrus for
choosing an alternative method of compliance during certification of
the SR, but frankly no flight instructor I know who works in the
Cirrus (if standardized by Cirrus, they're called 'CSIs') really cares
about the spin/BRS issue at all. The Cirrus handles wonderfully at
MCA - I can rack in 30 degrees of bank with the stall warning horn
ringing incessantly. No problem, just light buffet. From that 30
degree bank turn at MCA I can slam immediate full aileron to a turn in
the opposite direction, also at 30 degrees of bank *with no rudder
application at all to coordinate the roll* and the airplane refuses to
wobble over the edge and stall in uncoordinated fashion. Even full
power stalls, which occur at very high deck angles, can be effected
leaving one's feet on the floor -- and the stall is clean and
predictable throughout, with only a very slight yawing moment during
the break. You'd really have to work hard to force the airplane into
an inadvertent spin. But "they" keep perfecting the better idiot with
revolting persistence, so that will never be ruled out.

In short, the spin issue is a red herring if you're looking for things
to gripe about with this airplane. The ironic thing is, with 150 or
so hours in 20s and 22s, I'm not a big fan from an ownership
perspective - I see some glaring faults that need to be corrected to
make the current iteration of the 20/22 a truly safe and redundant
electric airplane - but none of my concerns involve spin resistance or
recovery. The cuffed airfoil (which is actually a decades-old
design!) takes care of that nicely.

Put it this way. I'll fly over areas of widespread LIFR in my Twin
Comanche and taken anything/everything at minimums, no sweat. In the
Cirrus, I don't like flying with ceilings less than 1000 feet or 3
miles of visibility. And I teach/fly instruments, often in IMC,
nearly every day. That should tell you something.

-Ryan
ATP/CFII (airplanes and helicopters)
.... and Cirrus Standardized Instructor

[C J Campbell]

"Ryan Ferguson" > wrote in message
om...
>

>
> My main contention is with your statement that the SR-22 and SR-20
> "won't" recover from a spin. That is an incorrect, or inaccurate if
> you prefer, statement based on the facts. It's just as bad as saying
> "Sure, they'll recover from spins!" If you stop making that
> statement, I'll be a happy camper. You can criticize Cirrus for
> choosing an alternative method of compliance during certification of
> the SR, but frankly no flight instructor I know who works in the
> Cirrus (if standardized by Cirrus, they're called 'CSIs') really cares
> about the spin/BRS issue at all.

As I don't. My original response was to a question about why the pilot had
not tried some form of spin recovery other than CAPS deployment. My response
was that the Cirrus will not recover from a spin. I will grant that the
response may have been incomplete, but I thought that CAPS recovery was
understood. I also thought that saying that the Cirrus will not spin would
be understood in the context of the aircraft manual. Instead, I get attacked
by a bunch of zealots, including you, who tell me that my statement is BS,
ignorant, and some kind of attack on Cirrus, as if verbal abuse and personal
defamation would make me like Cirrus more.

Quite honestly, I still like Cirrus the plane, but from what I have seen
here, I can't say much for the pilots.

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> You continue to say this even though the manual does not. The manual
> actually prohibits attempts at normal recovery and requires immediate
> deployment of the BRS.
>

You're right (how's that?!). I apparently had access to an outdated
manual, which said differently.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Michael 182]

"Matthew Chidester" > wrote in message
news:rDX4d.16430$He1.12412@attbi_s01...
> Also he was close on the operation limits and if he was heavy (overloaded)
> he could have easily gone in a stall/spin including heavy turbulence

Why? He was (as has been pointed out in other posts in this thread) almost 3
miles AGL. If he was losing airspeed, point the nose down. Why would he
stall? I've been in a lot of turbulence (I live on the Colorado Front Range)
and it has never caused the airplane to come close to stall speed.

Michael

[David Rind]

Michael 182 wrote:
> "Matthew Chidester" > wrote in message
> news:rDX4d.16430$He1.12412@attbi_s01...
>
>>Also he was close on the operation limits and if he was heavy (overloaded)
>>he could have easily gone in a stall/spin including heavy turbulence
>
>
> Why? He was (as has been pointed out in other posts in this thread) almost 3
> miles AGL. If he was losing airspeed, point the nose down. Why would he
> stall? I've been in a lot of turbulence (I live on the Colorado Front Range)
> and it has never caused the airplane to come close to stall speed.
>
> Michael

Well, I can't claim to have ever flown in severe turbulence, but my
sense is not that the turbulence causes you to lose airspeed and stall,
but that the correct way to handle this situation is to slow down enough
that you are likely to stall if a gust is severe enough to stress the
airframe. That's not to suggest that you want to end up in a spin, but
it seems preferable to stall and spin at altitude then to have parts of
the plane get ripped off. If I'm in a thunderstorm I'm going to make
sure my airspeed stays below Va.

--
David Rind

[Matthew Chidester]

exactly you're in a climb for some reason and heavy turbulence hits - woops
late response wrong rudder input you could do it.. not likely but i've flown
and climbing at vx or even vy and you hit a gust, stall alarm goes and if
you are THAT high - on a hot day you could get in a stall

(I think anyway)

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> Sounds an awful lot like "won't recover from a spin and has never
> demonstrated recovery from a spin" to me.
>

Well, that's a world apart from your earlier categorical statement.
Elegant retreat, though.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Javier,

> B) It's being spun again for certification overseas.
>

Where? In Europe, it is now certified with the chute.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> Who says I am anti-Cirrus?

ROFL.

>The Cirrus manual says the airplane cannot
> recover from a spin except by deploying CAPS.
>

Again: It does in NO WAY say that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Paul Sengupta]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> "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 "departs
> controlled flight," the CAPS must be deployed."

I figure that's like saying "The maximum demonstrated crosswind is 17 knots.
Because if this, you must not land in crosswinds of greater than 17 knots".

Ok, there's the "must not" bit and the "approved bit" but saying "Don't do
it"
is not the same as saying it can't be done.

There's been a big debate about the spin characteristics of my plane,
the Scottish Aviation Bulldog. It can get into a mode where it is very
difficult to recover using "normal" or "recommended" techniques. It
was found by one of the former British aerobatic champions that
giving a blip of throttle made the plane recover from this type of spin
pretty much immediately. A large outcry followed saying this wasn't
approved technique and non-standard recoveries should not be
attempted, etc. The RAF "thou shalt" if the plane got into this mode
of spin was to jetison the canopy and jump out.

Paul

[Javier Henderson]

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "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 "departs
> > controlled flight," the CAPS must be deployed."

OK, well, from the JAA certification testing:

Results. The aircraft recovered within one turn in all cases examined.
Recovery controls were to reduce power, neutralize ailerons, apply
full rudder opposite to spin, and to apply immediate full forward
(nose down) pitch control. Altitude loss from spin entry to recovery
ranged from 1,200 to 1,800 feet. Detail results can be found in the
above referenced reports.

The "above referenced report" is a largish pdf file you can download
from, among other places, the COPA website.

-jav