Cirrus Deploys Chute Safely

[m alexander]

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/9180849p-10080739c.html

[C J Campbell]

"m alexander" > wrote in message
et...
> http://www.modbee.com/local/story/9180849p-10080739c.html

Yet another Cirrus flying in coffin corner at high altitude in turbulence.
It seems to me that if airline pilots can be taught to do this without
falling out of the sky, then surely a Cirrus pilot can be taught the same,
or at least, like the rest of us, just stay out of there.

[Dude]

This sounds simillar to the Canadian story. Why can these guys not recover
from the spins if they are so high?


"m alexander" > wrote in message
et...
> http://www.modbee.com/local/story/9180849p-10080739c.html

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:12:30 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>Yet another Cirrus flying in coffin corner at high altitude in turbulence.
>It seems to me that if airline pilots can be taught to do this without
>falling out of the sky, then surely a Cirrus pilot can be taught the same,
>or at least, like the rest of us, just stay out of there.

How can you discern that from the story? Nothing in the text says
that the airplane was at high altitude, only that it got into a spin
due to extreme turbulence. Did you have access to additional
information not given in the story that the posted URL gives you?

My question would be: why was the pilot flying the airplane in a
thunderstorm? Was he flying in clouds and encountered an embedded
stormcell?

Corky Scott

[C J Campbell]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> This sounds simillar to the Canadian story. Why can these guys not
recover
> from the spins if they are so high?
>

The Cirrus cannot recover from spins. Here is a quote from the SR22 manual:

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

[C J Campbell]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:12:30 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >Yet another Cirrus flying in coffin corner at high altitude in
turbulence.
> >It seems to me that if airline pilots can be taught to do this without
> >falling out of the sky, then surely a Cirrus pilot can be taught the
same,
> >or at least, like the rest of us, just stay out of there.
>
> How can you discern that from the story? Nothing in the text says
> that the airplane was at high altitude, only that it got into a spin
> due to extreme turbulence. Did you have access to additional
> information not given in the story that the posted URL gives you?
>
> My question would be: why was the pilot flying the airplane in a
> thunderstorm? Was he flying in clouds and encountered an embedded
> stormcell?

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

[C.D.Damron]

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

Sounds like legal-speak to me. I'm am willing to bet that Cirrus has spun
the hell out of that design with pleasing results.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <YNq4d.240836$mD.16837@attbi_s02>,
"C.D.Damron" > wrote:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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.
>
> Sounds like legal-speak to me. I'm am willing to bet that Cirrus has spun
> the hell out of that design with pleasing results.
>


That is apparently what cost Astronaut Gorden Fullerton his life, when
he was testflying a Cirrus.

[C J Campbell]

"C.D.Damron" > wrote in message
news:YNq4d.240836$mD.16837@attbi_s02...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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.
>
> Sounds like legal-speak to me. I'm am willing to bet that Cirrus has
spun
> the hell out of that design with pleasing results.

Actually, no pilot has ever reported recovering from a spin in a Cirrus. It
is not for lack of trying. There are numerous reports of Cirrus aircraft
crashing (or they would have crashed if CAPS had not been deployed) after
the pilots entered a spin, however.

[Dave Hyde]

Orval Fairbairn> wrote

> That is apparently what cost Astronaut Gorden Fullerton his life, when
> he was testflying a Cirrus.

That will come as a surprise to him. :-) You're thinking of
Bob Overmyer, but he was killed in a VK-30, which was a completely
different airplane, a kit put out by Cirrus before they certificated
the SR series. Fullterton is still alive, BTW.

Dave 'program' Hyde

[Nathan Young]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:36:28 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:12:30 -0700, "C J Campbell"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Yet another Cirrus flying in coffin corner at high altitude in
>turbulence.
>> >It seems to me that if airline pilots can be taught to do this without
>> >falling out of the sky, then surely a Cirrus pilot can be taught the
>same,
>> >or at least, like the rest of us, just stay out of there.
>>
>> How can you discern that from the story? Nothing in the text says
>> that the airplane was at high altitude, only that it got into a spin
>> due to extreme turbulence. Did you have access to additional
>> information not given in the story that the posted URL gives you?
>>
>> My question would be: why was the pilot flying the airplane in a
>> thunderstorm? Was he flying in clouds and encountered an embedded
>> stormcell?
>
>http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/9723097.htm

Can you expand on your comment about coffin corner? My understanding
of coffin corner relates to jets flying high enough that their
indicated cruise speed is approach their indicated stall speed.

I looked up the SR22 POH for cruise speeds, stall speeds, etc.

If the SR22 was throttled back for economy or maneuvering.
47% pwr cruise @ 16000 feet = 162 KTAS
@ 16000 pressure altitude, 162 KTAS ~= 123 KIAS

Even at worst case CG and weight, stall speed for the SR22 is 70 KIAS.

That leaves margin of 53 kts. Seems ample to avoid a stall.

I do wonder what caused the pilot to stall @ 16kft.

-Nathan

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Dave Hyde says...

>Fullterton is still alive, BTW.

Boy I bet he's glad about that :-) Thanks for the clairifaction.

Chuck ( the rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated)S

[Ron Natalie]

> Actually, no pilot has ever reported recovering from a spin in a Cirrus.

Who would he report to?

> It
> is not for lack of trying. There are numerous reports of Cirrus aircraft
> crashing (or they would have crashed if CAPS had not been deployed) after
> the pilots entered a spin, however.
>
I don't agree. What there have been is a few low altitude spin ins and a couple
of crashes involving pilots not deploying the chute. However, there is no indication
that they attempted to recover from (or even recognized they were involved in) a spin.

Searching the NTSB for Cirrus:

1. Stall/spin immediately after takeoff (treetop level). SR20
2. Pilot deployed CAPS in IMC after insturments became unreliable SR22
3. Botched landing due to brake failure. SR22
4. Wire strike during simulated forced landing SR22
5. Low altitude stall due to evasive manouvering in the pattern. SR20
6. Crash from low altitude pass SR20
7. Wire strike. SR20
8. Spatial disorientation followed by a high speed impact with the ground (unlikely therefore
to have been a spin). SR22
9. VFR-into-IMC CFIT SR20
10. Collision with deer SR20
11. CAPS deployed after aileron falls off. SR22
12. Mountainous terrain/Density Alt CFIT SR20
13. SPIN FROM 5000 FEET. SR22
14. Spatial disorientation and CAPS wouldn't deploy, collides with trees on emergency landing. SR22
15. Emergency landing due to failure to replace drain plug SR20
16. Forced landing due to fuel mismanagement. SR22
17. Botched landing SR22
18. VFR into IMC CFIT (mountainous) SR20
19. SR20 test crash (aileron jamming)
20. VK30 CG test results in spin.
21. VF30 engine fire forced landing

Plus there are two more that don't have enough information to determine. However
I suspect one was a botched illicit IFR approach. The other was a fatal in Spain.
As far as I know ther ehave been FOUR Cirrus deployments (counting the most
recent one) Of which only the last one as near as I can tell might be spin related.
The others were PANIC button pulls from mechanical failures or disoriented pilots.

So at the most we've had one SR20/SR22 crash from a spin that the pilot might
have thought to try recovering from (either via CAPS deployment or control input)
and one CAPS deployment to avert a spin.

This doesn't agree with your statement.

[sidk]

I found it refreshing that both newspaper accounts treated the story
in an intelligent, technically reasonable manner with none hysterical
ranting that often occurs in accounts of General Aviation incidents.

Sid Knox

Velocity N199RS
Starduster N666SK
KR2 N24TC
W7QJQ

[C J Campbell]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> > Actually, no pilot has ever reported recovering from a spin in a Cirrus.
>
> Who would he report to?
>
> > It
> > is not for lack of trying. There are numerous reports of Cirrus aircraft
> > crashing (or they would have crashed if CAPS had not been deployed)
after
> > the pilots entered a spin, however.
> >
> I don't agree. What there have been is a few low altitude spin ins and a
couple
> of crashes involving pilots not deploying the chute. However, there is
no indication
> that they attempted to recover from (or even recognized they were involved
in) a spin.
>
> Searching the NTSB for Cirrus:
>
> 1. Stall/spin immediately after takeoff (treetop level). SR20
> 2. Pilot deployed CAPS in IMC after insturments became unreliable SR22

Cirrus' manuals treat spins and steep spirals the same. In this case, the
airplane entered a steep spiral.

> 3. Botched landing due to brake failure. SR22
> 4. Wire strike during simulated forced landing SR22
> 5. Low altitude stall due to evasive manouvering in the pattern. SR20

I am not sure what your point about altitude is or why you think it proves I
am wrong, but I am willing to listen to it.

> 6. Crash from low altitude pass SR20
> 7. Wire strike. SR20
> 8. Spatial disorientation followed by a high speed impact with the ground
(unlikely therefore
> to have been a spin). SR22

No, but it would have been a steep spiral, which Cirrus seems to think is
the same thing.

> 9. VFR-into-IMC CFIT SR20
> 10. Collision with deer SR20
> 11. CAPS deployed after aileron falls off. SR22
> 12. Mountainous terrain/Density Alt CFIT SR20

One of these two CFITs had the pilot reporting that he had entered a spin.
Of course, the news reports may have been incorrect.

> 13. SPIN FROM 5000 FEET. SR22
> 14. Spatial disorientation and CAPS wouldn't deploy, collides with trees
on emergency landing. SR22
> 15. Emergency landing due to failure to replace drain plug SR20
> 16. Forced landing due to fuel mismanagement. SR22
> 17. Botched landing SR22
> 18. VFR into IMC CFIT (mountainous) SR20
> 19. SR20 test crash (aileron jamming)
> 20. VK30 CG test results in spin.
> 21. VF30 engine fire forced landing
>
> Plus there are two more that don't have enough information to determine.
However
> I suspect one was a botched illicit IFR approach. The other was a fatal
in Spain.
> As far as I know ther ehave been FOUR Cirrus deployments (counting the
most
> recent one) Of which only the last one as near as I can tell might be
spin related.
> The others were PANIC button pulls from mechanical failures or disoriented
pilots.
>
> So at the most we've had one SR20/SR22 crash from a spin that the pilot
might
> have thought to try recovering from (either via CAPS deployment or control
input)
> and one CAPS deployment to avert a spin.
>
> This doesn't agree with your statement.

I count four spins.

[Justin H]

Why dont people make airplanes that will spin anymore?

[Dude]

> Why dont people make airplanes that will spin anymore?
>
>

I am pretty sure that its a trade off for speed or weight. Then again,
Lancair 400 supposedly spins just fine, so go figure.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Dave Hyde" > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn> wrote
>
> > That is apparently what cost Astronaut Gorden Fullerton his life, when
> > he was testflying a Cirrus.
>
> That will come as a surprise to him. :-) You're thinking of
> Bob Overmyer, but he was killed in a VK-30, which was a completely
> different airplane, a kit put out by Cirrus before they certificated
> the SR series. Fullterton is still alive, BTW.
>
> Dave 'program' Hyde
>
>
>

You are right! My bad! I am glad that GF is still with us.

[Ron Natalie]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message news:qd-dnQxHoKuEcc_cRVn-

> > 2. Pilot deployed CAPS in IMC after insturments became unreliable SR22
>
> Cirrus' manuals treat spins and steep spirals the same. In this case, the
> airplane entered a steep spiral.

But that wasn't your assertion. Your assertion was that spin recovery was either
fatal or resulted in a CAPS deployment, with the implication being that spin recovery
by control inputs was not possible. Sprials are a completely different beast.


> > 5. Low altitude stall due to evasive manouvering in the pattern. SR20
>
> I am not sure what your point about altitude is or why you think it proves I
> am wrong, but I am willing to listen to it.

Because my assertion is that no matter what the method for spin recovery would
be (in whatever aircraft), recovery from such a low altitude spin would have been
unlikely.

> > 8. Spatial disorientation followed by a high speed impact with the ground
> (unlikely therefore
> > to have been a spin). SR22
>
> No, but it would have been a steep spiral, which Cirrus seems to think is
> the same thing.

But that wasn't the point you claimed. You claimed that people were dying because
there was no way to recover from the spin.
>
> > 9. VFR-into-IMC CFIT SR20
> > 12. Mountainous terrain/Density Alt CFIT SR20
>
> One of these two CFITs had the pilot reporting that he had entered a spin.
> Of course, the news reports may have been incorrect.

Neither is apparent from the NTSB report... One showed the aircraft entering
pretty much flat and straight ahead, the other showed failure outclimb obstacles
at a reduced peformance (DA) condition.

>
> I count four spins.
>
I don't. I count at most one spin that could have been recoverable if the aircraft
had conventional spin behavior (and it has yet been proven that the Cirrus can't be
recovered by some control inputs). Your assertion of numerous crashes as a result
of spins and/or deployments is not supported. Even by your own optimistic view
it's only 4.

[Ron Natalie]

"Justin H" > wrote in message ...
> Why dont people make airplanes that will spin anymore?
>
Who says they don't?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >, "Justin H" >
wrote:

> Why dont people make airplanes that will spin anymore?
>
>


They all do -- some just don't recover properly.

[Dude]

Trying to maintain altitude in a T storm, rather than maintaing attitude?

That happened to the Canada guy supposedly.


"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:36:28 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:12:30 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Yet another Cirrus flying in coffin corner at high altitude in
> >turbulence.
> >> >It seems to me that if airline pilots can be taught to do this without
> >> >falling out of the sky, then surely a Cirrus pilot can be taught the
> >same,
> >> >or at least, like the rest of us, just stay out of there.
> >>
> >> How can you discern that from the story? Nothing in the text says
> >> that the airplane was at high altitude, only that it got into a spin
> >> due to extreme turbulence. Did you have access to additional
> >> information not given in the story that the posted URL gives you?
> >>
> >> My question would be: why was the pilot flying the airplane in a
> >> thunderstorm? Was he flying in clouds and encountered an embedded
> >> stormcell?
> >
> >http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/9723097.htm
>
> Can you expand on your comment about coffin corner? My understanding
> of coffin corner relates to jets flying high enough that their
> indicated cruise speed is approach their indicated stall speed.
>
> I looked up the SR22 POH for cruise speeds, stall speeds, etc.
>
> If the SR22 was throttled back for economy or maneuvering.
> 47% pwr cruise @ 16000 feet = 162 KTAS
> @ 16000 pressure altitude, 162 KTAS ~= 123 KIAS
>
> Even at worst case CG and weight, stall speed for the SR22 is 70 KIAS.
>
> That leaves margin of 53 kts. Seems ample to avoid a stall.
>
> I do wonder what caused the pilot to stall @ 16kft.
>
> -Nathan
>

[Dude]

> >
> I don't. I count at most one spin that could have been recoverable if
the aircraft
> had conventional spin behavior (and it has yet been proven that the Cirrus
can't be
> recovered by some control inputs). Your assertion of numerous crashes as
a result
> of spins and/or deployments is not supported. Even by your own
optimistic view
> it's only 4.
>


Only 4? That seems like a lot for such a small fleet to me. I am amazed at
how people seem to think that average is acceptable. A new design should be
SAFER than a new 182 other 40 year old design of similar class. Progress is
called for is it not?

btw, there are 2 in the last few months, this and canada.

Combine that with the guys that were "going out to practice stalls" and you
have 3 that I know of. I couldn't get through all your guys mishmash to see
what other one is arguable.

[Cy Galley]

Pilot William Graham, 65, told authorities that his airplane, a Cirrus SR22,
stalled at 16,000 feet, then encountered turbulent weather at 13,000 to
15,000 feet that sent it into a spin, according to the Stockton Record
newspaper.


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Corky Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:12:30 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Yet another Cirrus flying in coffin corner at high altitude in
> turbulence.
> > >It seems to me that if airline pilots can be taught to do this without
> > >falling out of the sky, then surely a Cirrus pilot can be taught the
> same,
> > >or at least, like the rest of us, just stay out of there.
> >
> > How can you discern that from the story? Nothing in the text says
> > that the airplane was at high altitude, only that it got into a spin
> > due to extreme turbulence. Did you have access to additional
> > information not given in the story that the posted URL gives you?
> >
> > My question would be: why was the pilot flying the airplane in a
> > thunderstorm? Was he flying in clouds and encountered an embedded
> > stormcell?
>
> http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/9723097.htm
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> >
> I don't. I count at most one spin that could have been recoverable if
the aircraft
> had conventional spin behavior (and it has yet been proven that the Cirrus
can't be
> recovered by some control inputs). Your assertion of numerous crashes as
a result
> of spins and/or deployments is not supported. Even by your own
optimistic view
> it's only 4.

I plead guilty to the charge of pessimism. I think we are talking at cross
purposes here. I am going by what the manual says, which says that spins
have not been tested and the only approved method of recovery is by
deploying CAPS. I also think the number of stall/spin accidents is
excessive, given the small size of the fleet and the fact that the Cirrus is
supposed to be especially resistant to this type of accident.

I think the thing that really bothers me is the implicit criticism of the
pilot who merely followed the procedures in his manual, as well as the
religious like fervor with which some people attack anyone who dares to say
anything they perceive as negative about Cirrus, even if the information
comes from Cirrus itself.

I see no particular reason why the Cirrus should have any method of recovery
from spins other than deploying CAPS. If there is, fine, but why bother? If
the airplane is supposed to be spin and stall resistant and the pilots are
trained properly, then this type of accident should be much more rare than
it seems to be.

[C J Campbell]

"Justin H" > wrote in message
...
> Why dont people make airplanes that will spin anymore?

Even the Cirrus will spin -- you just pull the CAPS handle to make it stop.
:-) Spin certification is an additional expense and the planes are expensive
enough as it is. Still, there are plenty of airplanes certified for spin
training, not least the ubiquitous Cessna 172.

[C.D.Damron]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Even the Cirrus will spin -- you just pull the CAPS handle to make it
stop.
> :-) Spin certification is an additional expense and the planes are
expensive
> enough as it is.

That is what I was getting at. Just because it isn't certified for spins
and Cirrus "says" it hasn't been tested for spins doesn't mean that Cirrus
has spun the hell out of it.

Not seeking spin certification and the recomendations of the manual appear
to me as a means to reduce liability. Consider the possible consequences of
Cirrus saying that it has great spin characteristics but it isn't certified
for spins and they don't recommend conventional recovery techniques.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:11:04 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"Justin H" > wrote in message
...
>> Why dont people make airplanes that will spin anymore?
>
>Even the Cirrus will spin -- you just pull the CAPS handle to make it stop.
>:-) Spin certification is an additional expense and the planes are expensive
>enough as it is. Still, there are plenty of airplanes certified for spin
>training, not least the ubiquitous Cessna 172.

The Cessna 172 is not certified under the same regulations as the Cirrus.
Unlike cars, once an airplane has received its type certificate, it does
not have to be redesigned whenever the regulations are updated.

The 172 came out in the '50s, and there's a good chance that the actual
type certificate is that of the Cessna 170, which came out in the '40s.
The 172 was certified under CAA regs, not under the modern Part 23 that the
Cirrus had to meet. Take a 1954 Ford and a 2004 Ford, and compare the
complexity, and the degree of Government standards that had to be met.

With that said, I am reminded of an article I read several years ago, about
the development of the Aviat Husky. While looking much like an older
design, it was a brand-new aircraft that was certified under the modern
Part 23. The article quoted the company president saying that the
certification process was not especially onerous or time/money consuming.

It'll be interesting to see how the Sport Pilot consensus standard comes
out, for the certification of Light Sport Aircraft. I can't see the
standard requiring in-depth flight testing...but maybe it will, and allow
the manufacturers to install a ballistic chute if they don't want to go
through the design/test effort.

Ron Wanttaja

[Roger Halstead]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:30:32 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>>
<snip>
>
>Cirrus' manuals treat spins and steep spirals the same. In this case, the
>airplane entered a steep spiral.
>


<snip>
>> 8. Spatial disorientation followed by a high speed impact with the ground
>(unlikely therefore
>> to have been a spin). SR22
>
>No, but it would have been a steep spiral, which Cirrus seems to think is
>the same thing.

Remind me to never purchase a plane whose manufacturer doesn't appear
to know the difference between a steep spiral and a spin.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger Halstead]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:41:57 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:

>> >
>> I don't. I count at most one spin that could have been recoverable if
>the aircraft
>> had conventional spin behavior (and it has yet been proven that the Cirrus
>can't be
>> recovered by some control inputs). Your assertion of numerous crashes as
>a result
>> of spins and/or deployments is not supported. Even by your own
>optimistic view
>> it's only 4.
>>
>
>
>Only 4? That seems like a lot for such a small fleet to me. I am amazed at
>how people seem to think that average is acceptable. A new design should be
>SAFER than a new 182 other 40 year old design of similar class. Progress is
>called for is it not?
>

Not necessarily. The Cirrus design is a *high performance* airplane
with "fixed feet". Pilots appear to be treating it like any other
"fixed gear" airplane which it's not.

On top of that they have the BRS and to cover an apparent and admitted
inability to recover from a spin.

So, you have, in general, pilots with a fixed gear attitude flying an
airplane with a retract attitude. It is deceptively slippery.
It is 20 knots faster than the typical Bo and is definitely not a
short field aircraft.
According to the pilots of the one on our field it is a plane you fly
on, much like the G-III or Lancair IV. They specifically say it lands
fast and is not a pane for full stall landings.

I would be very interested in how it handles accelerated stalls.

Overall in my opinion and it is just that, an opinion, the plane could
use a larger tail and rudder. Any plane that whose POH says "pull the
chute" in a spin, or steep spiral needs a bit more work.

>btw, there are 2 in the last few months, this and canada.
>
>Combine that with the guys that were "going out to practice stalls" and you
>have 3 that I know of. I couldn't get through all your guys mishmash to see

Practicing stalls in high performance means that most likely, sooner
or later, it is going to drop a wing. An uncoordinated stall brings a
spin *entry*, but a real spin takes time to develop. If the pilot is
not familiar with spins and high performance he/she is most likely to
use the ailerons which will accelerate the entry.

I do not know how Cirrus handles this situation, but the new owners
out here said you do not do uncoordinated stalls in the SR-22.

That scares me a bit as sooner or later one will happen, be it in
rough air, or a mistake in practicing.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>what other one is arguable.
>
>
>
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:11:04 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Justin H" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Why dont people make airplanes that will spin anymore?
> >
> >Even the Cirrus will spin -- you just pull the CAPS handle to make it
stop.
> >:-) Spin certification is an additional expense and the planes are
expensive
> >enough as it is. Still, there are plenty of airplanes certified for spin
> >training, not least the ubiquitous Cessna 172.
>
> The Cessna 172 is not certified under the same regulations as the Cirrus.
> Unlike cars, once an airplane has received its type certificate, it does
> not have to be redesigned whenever the regulations are updated.

Actually, when Cessna started building new piston aircraft, they were
re-certified under the new regulations.

[Dude]

Roger, I am with you on your points, but I have to say that it seems the
Diamond Star (admittedly not hi performance) and Lancair 400 have managed to
create wings that are efficient and stall/spin friendly.

I think that we should expect a new design to be better in these areas due
to all our new knowledge, tools, and materials. I guess I am just to
demanding?

At any rate, you are right on about pilots not being ready for the Cirrus
planes, and I don't see the 20 being any easier to fly than the 22.

[Ron Natalie]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message ...
>> The 172 came out in the '50s, and there's a good chance that the actual
> type certificate is that of the Cessna 170, which came out in the '40s.

The 172 through 172S type certificate was originally issued in 1955 and amended up through
2000. The 172RG is a different type certificate, as is the 170 (came out in 1948).

[Ron Natalie]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message news:9_mdnSZx5qHW2MncRVn->> >

> Actually, when Cessna started building new piston aircraft, they were
> re-certified under the new regulations.
>
If you are talking about the singles they most certainly were NOT.
The 172R and 172S were issued as amendments to type certificate 3A12,
the late model 182's on 3A13, and the 206's on A4CE. All use CAR3 as
their certification basis.

While FAA keeps talking about requiring changes to TC's and STC's to
correspond to the current requirements, they've not ever actually made that
change to the regulations.

[Ron Natalie]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message m...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message news:9_mdnSZx5qHW2MncRVn->> >
>
> > Actually, when Cessna started building new piston aircraft, they were
> > re-certified under the new regulations.
> >
> If you are talking about the singles they most certainly were NOT.
> The 172R and 172S were issued as amendments to type certificate 3A12,
> the late model 182's on 3A13, and the 206's on A4CE. All use CAR3 as
> their certification basis.

I'll follow this up. CJ is right on this one. While they were certificated on the same
type certificate, it was certificated under FAR23, but with a whole list of exceptions.

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:

> ...I am reminded of an article I read several years ago, about
> the development of the Aviat Husky. While looking much like an older
> design, it was a brand-new aircraft that was certified under the modern
> Part 23. The article quoted the company president saying that the
> certification process was not especially onerous or time/money consuming.

Probably Alfred Scott's article "Lite Engineering and the Myth of
Simplified Certification":

http://www.seqair.com/Other/LiteEng/LiteEng.html

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Mike Murdock]

> If the airplane is supposed to be spin and stall resistant and the pilots
are
> trained properly, then this type of accident should be much more rare than
> it seems to be.

The airplane is supposed to be spin resistant. I don't recall any
knowledgeable person claiming that it is stall resistant. As with most
general aviation airplanes, you can pitch it so that the angle of attack
exceeds the critical angle, and the wing will stall.

Regards,

-Mike

[C J Campbell]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> >
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:9_mdnSZx5qHW2MncRVn->> >
> >
> > > Actually, when Cessna started building new piston aircraft, they were
> > > re-certified under the new regulations.
> > >
> > If you are talking about the singles they most certainly were NOT.
> > The 172R and 172S were issued as amendments to type certificate 3A12,
> > the late model 182's on 3A13, and the 206's on A4CE. All use CAR3 as
> > their certification basis.
>
> I'll follow this up. CJ is right on this one. While they were
certificated on the same
> type certificate, it was certificated under FAR23, but with a whole list
of exceptions.
>

(Whew) I was gettin' ready to demand my money back.

[C J Campbell]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> >> The 172 came out in the '50s, and there's a good chance that the actual
> > type certificate is that of the Cessna 170, which came out in the '40s.
>
> The 172 through 172S type certificate was originally issued in 1955 and
amended up through
> 2000. The 172RG is a different type certificate, as is the 170 (came out
in 1948).
>

It is actually more complex than that. The 172RG and 172XP are appended to
the type certificate for the 175, of all things. There are a couple of other
172s also that are on the 175 certificate. I bet you could write a whole
book about it, and there are some people who are so interested in this kind
of thing that they would actually buy it.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 24 Sep 2004 15:57:32 -0700, (Bob Kuykendall) wrote:

>Earlier, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>
>> ...I am reminded of an article I read several years ago, about
>> the development of the Aviat Husky. While looking much like an older
>> design, it was a brand-new aircraft that was certified under the modern
>> Part 23. The article quoted the company president saying that the
>> certification process was not especially onerous or time/money consuming.
>
>Probably Alfred Scott's article "Lite Engineering and the Myth of
>Simplified Certification":
>
>http://www.seqair.com/Other/LiteEng/LiteEng.html

Yep, that's it. Don't know how I got to thinking it was a FLYING magazine
article.

Scott *does* have a few good turns of phrase in the piece. "Libertarian
Tulipmania"... I love it.

Ron Wanttaja

[Byron J. Covey]

They do spin. Not all recover.

BJC

"Justin H" > wrote in message
...
> Why dont people make airplanes that will spin anymore?
>