SR22 Spin Recovery

[gwengler]

>> 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)

Quite to the contrary! The direct quote from the SR22 POH is "Do not
waste time and altitude trying to recover from a spiral/spin before
activating CAPS."; and:
"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."; and:
"Inadvertent Spin Entry
1. CAPS .............................................. Activate"

The complete Spin Chapter from the SR22 POH is quoted below.

You should not make unsupported statements that actually could - if
followed - endanger the lives of pilots and passengers by not
following proper emergency procedures.

Gerd
ATP


"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
Revision A1"

[Thomas Borchert]

Gwengler,

> Quite to the contrary!
>

You are right. The POH copy I had access to and which I quoted from
must be outdated, since it does describe the procedure the way I posted
it. But the POH as posted on the Cirrus website does have just one
action item on the spin list: CAPS: Activate.

Thanks for the correction.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Richard Russell]

On 22 Sep 2004 07:56:40 -0700, (gwengler) wrote:

>>> 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)
>
>Quite to the contrary! The direct quote from the SR22 POH is "Do not
>waste time and altitude trying to recover from a spiral/spin before
>activating CAPS."; and:
>"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."; and:
>"Inadvertent Spin Entry
>1. CAPS .............................................. Activate"
>
>The complete Spin Chapter from the SR22 POH is quoted below.
>
>You should not make unsupported statements that actually could - if
>followed - endanger the lives of pilots and passengers by not
>following proper emergency procedures.
>
>Gerd
>ATP
>
>
>"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
>Revision A1"

I don't have an opinion either way on this issue because I don't have
any personal knowledge (I know, that's no excuse on Usenet). I will
say this, however. The language in the manual would not by itself
convince me that a conventional spin recovery was impossible. The
fact that the manual requires the immediately deployment of the
parachute is a reflection of the fact that Cirrus did not go through
the spin recovery certification process and therefore cannot recommend
a conventional spin recovery technique. As far as I'm concerned the
language in the manual is what it is for legal reasons and does not
definitively support either side of the issue regarding the
possibility of recovery.

Rich "glad I don't have to make the pull-no pull decision" Russell

[Robert M. Gary]

Richard Russell > wrote in message >...
> I don't have an opinion either way on this issue because I don't have
> any personal knowledge (I know, that's no excuse on Usenet). I will
> say this, however. The language in the manual would not by itself
> convince me that a conventional spin recovery was impossible. The
> fact that the manual requires the immediately deployment of the
> parachute is a reflection of the fact that Cirrus did not go through
> the spin recovery certification process and therefore cannot recommend
> a conventional spin recovery technique. As far as I'm concerned the
> language in the manual is what it is for legal reasons and does not
> definitively support either side of the issue regarding the
> possibility of recovery.

After speaking with the test pilot from Mooney I was surprised how
much of the POH comes from marketing and legel and how little comes
from engineering and test pilots. That's one reason cruise speeds
don't seem to work out. Cruise speeds come from marketing.

-Robert

[Rick Durden]

Robert,

You are repeating a common myth in general aviation regarding the POH.
Perhaps cruise speeds come from marketing at Mooney (although I've
never noticed it to be the case), they certainly do not at Cessna, New
Piper or Cirrus. In the evaluations I've done of those aircraft they
invariably beat book speeds by from one to four knots. Cessna cruise
speeds are at full gross weight and New Piper's at "mid-cruise
weight". All three companies, in my experience, are extremely careful
to provide accurate information on performance in their POHs, knowing
that they will be subject to scrutiny by the aviation media.

I will agree that in the 1960s and early 1970s, before POHs (pre-1976)
a number of manufacturers, notably Maule and the Piper rag-wing
airplanes and the very early Cherokees, gave cruise performance
numbers that were seriously optimistic and thus tainted the entire
industry. They were called on it repeatedly by the mid-70s, notably
by Aviation Consumer, and the practice ended, and the aircraft I
examined, Beech, Grumman/Gulfstream singles, Cessna, New Piper, Cirrus
and the current Adam A500, met or exceeded book performance figures.

All the best,
Rick

(Robert M. Gary) wrote in message >...
> Richard Russell > wrote in message >...
> > I don't have an opinion either way on this issue because I don't have
> > any personal knowledge (I know, that's no excuse on Usenet). I will
> > say this, however. The language in the manual would not by itself
> > convince me that a conventional spin recovery was impossible. The
> > fact that the manual requires the immediately deployment of the
> > parachute is a reflection of the fact that Cirrus did not go through
> > the spin recovery certification process and therefore cannot recommend
> > a conventional spin recovery technique. As far as I'm concerned the
> > language in the manual is what it is for legal reasons and does not
> > definitively support either side of the issue regarding the
> > possibility of recovery.
>
> After speaking with the test pilot from Mooney I was surprised how
> much of the POH comes from marketing and legel and how little comes
> from engineering and test pilots. That's one reason cruise speeds
> don't seem to work out. Cruise speeds come from marketing.
>
> -Robert

[Ron Natalie]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message om...

> After speaking with the test pilot from Mooney I was surprised how
> much of the POH comes from marketing and legel and how little comes
> from engineering and test pilots. That's one reason cruise speeds
> don't seem to work out. Cruise speeds come from marketing.
>
There are a few design speeds that are certification issues, however the
cruise numbers aren't one of them (except by coincidence).

[C J Campbell]

Whatever you do, don't quote the manual's instructions on spin recovery.
There are some religious fanatics here who will tell you that you are
ignorant and unfit to fly and anti-Cirrus. Since Cirrus wrote the manual,
perhaps Cirrus is anti-Cirrus as well? :-)

[Dan Luke]

"C J Campbell" wrote:
> Whatever you do, don't quote the manual's instructions on spin recovery.

Well, you are quoting them to support your assertion that a Cirrus WILL NOT
recover from a spin. That is like saying I CAN'T ride my bicycle without a
helmet because the owner's manual says don't do it.
--
Dan (still digging)
C-172RG at BFM

[C Kingsbury]

Here's a more practical way of putting it. You're at 14,000', which gives
you, let's just say, 10,000' to work with, which strikes me as a fair
amount.

Do you even bother trying? Is there a risk that the stall will tighten
and/or accelerate to the point that the CAPS will not deploy properly to
recover the aircraft?

FWIW I have seen a spin once, from the front seat of a Pitts 12 years ago
(before I was a pilot). It was the most disorienting thing I have ever
experienced. I'd be very happy I think to have that lever to pull.

Best,
-cwk.

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't have an opinion either way on this issue because I don't have
> any personal knowledge (I know, that's no excuse on Usenet). I will
> say this, however. The language in the manual would not by itself
> convince me that a conventional spin recovery was impossible. The
> fact that the manual requires the immediately deployment of the
> parachute is a reflection of the fact that Cirrus did not go through
> the spin recovery certification process and therefore cannot recommend
> a conventional spin recovery technique. As far as I'm concerned the
> language in the manual is what it is for legal reasons and does not
> definitively support either side of the issue regarding the
> possibility of recovery.
>
> Rich "glad I don't have to make the pull-no pull decision" Russell

[C J Campbell]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> Here's a more practical way of putting it. You're at 14,000', which gives
> you, let's just say, 10,000' to work with, which strikes me as a fair
> amount.
>
> Do you even bother trying? Is there a risk that the stall will tighten
> and/or accelerate to the point that the CAPS will not deploy properly to
> recover the aircraft?

There is no risk of that. Look, the airplane descended several thousand feet
before the pilot deployed CAPS. Surely he was attempting to recover during
that time? I simply do not understand this criticism of a pilot who was
following the published procedures in his aircraft manual.