Another SR22

[Terry[_1_]]

What's with the SR22 crashes? Another one went down Arizona yesterday.

[Jim Macklin]

Gravity.


"Terry" > wrote in message
...
| What's with the SR22 crashes? Another one went down
Arizona yesterday.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:17:49 -0700, Terry > wrote
in >:

>What's with the SR22 crashes? Another one went down Arizona yesterday.


It looks like that slick wing doesn't like ice:
http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/events01/media/01_121LD.txt

[Kingfish]

Terry wrote:
> What's with the SR22 crashes? Another one went down Arizona yesterday.

I doubt there's any more of them crashing than Pipers or Cessnas. They
do seem to make more of a stir when they do because of the national
attention focused on them. Now that Cirrus has overtaken Cessna in
production the fleet is getting larger fairly quickly.

[Ron Lee]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:17:49 -0700, Terry > wrote
>in >:
>
>>What's with the SR22 crashes? Another one went down Arizona yesterday.
>
>
>It looks like that slick wing doesn't like ice:
>http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/events01/media/01_121LD.txt

Sounds like pilot stupidity. Wasn't he aware that the parachute
system offers to save them from doing other stupid things like flying
into icing conditions?

The parachute system absolves the pilot of being responsible and
making sound judgments about when to fly or not fly BUT they must know
when to activate the parachute.

Ron Lee

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:37:27 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote in >:

>Sounds like pilot stupidity.

You sound like an expert in the subject. :-)

[gwengler]

> I doubt there's any more of them crashing than Pipers or Cessnas.

You're probably right. But the point is, this is not supposed to
happen to Cirrus airplanes! Because as soon as a pilot gets into
trouble he has the option to pull the chute and save the day. So, if
Cirrus and Cessnas have the same accident rates, it would be proof that
the parachute "rescue" system basically does not work or in other words
does not provide extra safety in real terms.
It's like the section of the road where a pedestrian had been killed
jaywalking. A crossing with lights markings etc. was instituted and
the number of accidents rose immediately. That's because people
crossing were not careful anymore as they were when jaywalking.

Gerd

[Thomas Borchert]

Gwengler,

> You're probably right. But the point is, this is not supposed to
> happen to Cirrus airplanes!

Says who?

> Because as soon as a pilot gets into
> trouble he has the option to pull the chute and save the day. So, if
> Cirrus and Cessnas have the same accident rates, it would be proof that
> the parachute "rescue" system basically does not work or in other words
> does not provide extra safety in real terms.

Maybe it is proof pilots don't work.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Kingfish]

gwengler wrote:
> > I doubt there's any more of them crashing than Pipers or Cessnas.
>
> You're probably right. But the point is, this is not supposed to
> happen to Cirrus airplanes! Because as soon as a pilot gets into
> trouble he has the option to pull the chute and save the day. So, if
> Cirrus and Cessnas have the same accident rates, it would be proof that
> the parachute "rescue" system basically does not work or in other words
> does not provide extra safety in real terms.

Agreed. The responsibility always falls on the pilot to not fly into
known icing conditions (in a non-icing equipped acft), but the BRS
system should be an adequate back-up in case of that decision making
process breaking down. I don't know if measuring Cirrus and Cessna
accidents makes for a valid comparison if many of the Cirrus accidents
don't involve BRS deployment. It only works when you pull the handle...

[Stefan]

Kingfish schrieb:

> Agreed. The responsibility always falls on the pilot to not fly into
> known icing conditions (in a non-icing equipped acft), but the BRS
> system should be an adequate back-up in case of that decision making
> process breaking down.

And this is exactly the dangerous mindset. When affordable handheld GPS
units became available, I've read quite a few accident reports where VFR
pilots took off in marginal conditions and navigated GPS based "ad hoc
IFR" into terrain. I expect to read a couple of accident reports in the
near future where pilots fly their Cirri into hostile conditions for
which the plane wasn't built, thinking they could rely on that chute as
an "adequate backup". Hardly a design flaw.

Stefan

[gwengler]

Thomas,

I knew you couldn't let this go. Anyway:
> > You're probably right. But the point is, this is not supposed to
> > happen to Cirrus airplanes!
>
> Says who?

With "this" I meant that Cirrus and comparable airplanes have the same
accident rates. From the Cirrus website: "CAPS™ revolutionized
general aviation safety by providing an alternative measure of safety
to occupants, similar in theory to the role of airbags in automobiles.
No other certified general aviation aircraft manufacturer in the world
provides this safety feature as standard equipment."
I can only understand the notion of "revolutionized general aviation
safety" as having a better accident record than other manufacturers.
Therefore, as a direct answer to your question, Cirrus says so.

> Maybe it is proof pilots don't work.

You may have a point here which supports my initial theory that just
having an additional safety feature does not necessarily make an
airplane safer.

Gerd

[Thomas Borchert]

Gwengler,

> You may have a point here which supports my initial theory that just
> having an additional safety feature does not necessarily make an
> airplane safer.
>

I agree. And the Cirrus stuff is, of course, marketing. Clever
marketing.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[rps]

Ron Lee wrote:
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:17:49 -0700, Terry > wrote
> >in >:
> >
> >>What's with the SR22 crashes? Another one went down Arizona yesterday.
> >
> >
> >It looks like that slick wing doesn't like ice:
> >http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/events01/media/01_121LD.txt
>
> Sounds like pilot stupidity. Wasn't he aware that the parachute
> system offers to save them from doing other stupid things like flying
> into icing conditions?
>
> The parachute system absolves the pilot of being responsible and
> making sound judgments about when to fly or not fly BUT they must know
> when to activate the parachute.

Why would you jump to that conclusion? Maybe he thought that he could
descend into a nearby airport. According to Flightaware, he was going
from Reno (KRNO) to Lake Tahoe (KTVL). The flight path ends near
either Carson (KCXP), which has a 5900' runway, or Minden (KMEV), which
has a 7400' runway. There are at least these other possibilities:

1) I think the Cirrus POH indicates to deploy CAPS in the event a safe
landing cannot be made. If the pilot thought that he could keep his
speed up and get into KCXP or KMEV, he may have been tempted to attempt
a landing and stalled with no chance of recovery, such as in a steep
turn. CAPS is to be used as a last resort, such as in complete IMC or
inhospitable terrain.

2) CAPS can be deployed only after getting the speed down to about 133
knots. His cruise speed would probably have been about 180 knots. If
he decided to deploy the CAPS, his wing may have stalled while he
attempted to get his airspeed down to CAPS deployment speed.

3) He may have been above Lake Tahoe, which is big, deep, and cold. If
I thought the plane is flyable, I'd probably head close to shore before
pulling the CAPS handle as I'm not sufficiently confident of my ability
to swim long distances or tread extremely cold water for an extended
period.

He may have been stupid in departing into known icing, but I didn't
check yesterday's METARs or PIREPs in the area, and so don't know
whether icing was forecast or known. However, we don't yet know why he
didn't pull the 'chute handle and so can't yet call him stupid for that.

[BDS[_2_]]

There was a blurb in the latest IFR magazine saying that the passengers of a
Cirrus were saved when they pulled the chute after the pilot had a stroke.

There might be more to it than slick marketing after all. I bet those
passengers think so anyway.

BDS


"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Gwengler,
>
> > You may have a point here which supports my initial theory that just
> > having an additional safety feature does not necessarily make an
> > airplane safer.
> >
>
> I agree. And the Cirrus stuff is, of course, marketing. Clever
> marketing.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[rps]

rps wrote:
> Ron Lee wrote:
> > Larry Dighera > wrote:

> 3) He may have been above Lake Tahoe, which is big, deep, and cold. If
> I thought the plane is flyable, I'd probably head close to shore before
> pulling the CAPS handle as I'm not sufficiently confident of my ability
> to swim long distances or tread extremely cold water for an extended
> period.

I'll retract the third possibility as Flightaware clearly shows that he
was not over the lake.

[BDS[_2_]]

"rps" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> He may have been stupid in departing into known icing, but I didn't
> check yesterday's METARs or PIREPs in the area, and so don't know
> whether icing was forecast or known. However, we don't yet know why he
> didn't pull the 'chute handle and so can't yet call him stupid for that.
>

WAUS45 KKCI 251345 SLCZ WA 251345 AIRMET ZULU UPDT 2 FOR ICE AND FRZLVL
VALID UNTIL 252000 AIRMET ICE...ID MT WY NV UT CO AZ NM FROM GTF TO 20WNW
MLS TO AKO TO TBE TO INW TO ELY TO BOI TO GTF OCNL MOD RIME/MXD ICGICIP BTN
FRZLVL AND FL200. FRZLVLS 050-080 OVR NRN AND WRN PTNS AREA RSG TO 100-120
OVR SRN AND ERN PTS. CONDS SPRDG NEWD DURG PD...CONTG BYD 20Z THRU 02Z.
ELSW...NO SGFNT ICE EXP OUTSIDE CNVTV ACT. FRZLVL...SFC-080...N AND W OF
FMG-OAL-BCE-JAC-BOY-GGW LN  ...080-120...N AND W OF BZA-TCS-LVS-DEN-MCK LN
 ...120-140...S AND E OF BZA-TCS-LVS-DEN-MCK LN ..

WAUS45 KKCI 251945 SLCZ WA 251945 AIRMET ZULU UPDT 3 FOR ICE AND FRZLVL
VALID UNTIL 260200 AIRMET ICE...ID MT WY NV UT CO AZ NM FROM HLN TO MLS TO
CYS TO LVS TO 20W SJN TO PGS TO TWF TO HLN OCNL MOD RIME/MXD ICGICIP BTN
FRZLVL AND FL220. FRZLVLS 050-080 OVR NRN AND WRN PTNS AREA RSG TO 100-120
OVR SRN AND ERN PTNS. CONDS SPRDG NEWD DURG PD...CONTG BYD 02Z THRU 08Z.
ELSW...NO SGFNT ICE EXP OUTSIDE CNVTV ACT. FRZLVL...SFC-080...N AND W OF
FMG-OAL-BCE-JAC-BOY-GGW LN  ...080-120...N AND W OF BZA-TCS-LVS-DEN-MCK LN
 ...120-140...S AND E OF BZA-TCS-LVS-DEN-MCK LN ....

METAR KHND 251856Z 03011KT 10SM CLR 21/05 A3001 RMK AO2 T02110050 SLP129

METAR KIGM 251859Z AUTO 23018G21KT 10SM CLR 19/10 A2999 RMK AO2 SLP108
T01890100 TSNO

METAR KINS 251856Z AUTO 35010G15KT 10SM BKN085 18/M08 A3006 RMK AO2 SLP149
T01831083

METAR KDRA 251853Z 03013KT 10SM FEW070 SCT090 19/M11 A3006 RMK AO2 SLP150
T01891106

[Gig 601XL Builder]

While that has happened there have also been cases where non-pilots were
talked down when the exact same thing happened to the pilot. The difference
being that the plane was flyable again when landed without a chute.

Airsafety had a report earlier this year of a non-pilot landing a Twin
Commander but the link is broken.

http://www.airsafety.com/reports/ROW060215A.pdf


AOPA has http://flash.aopa.org/asf/pinch_hitter/flash.cfm which if you are a
non-pilot and fly with a GA pilot with any regularity you should check out.



"BDS" > wrote in message
...
> There was a blurb in the latest IFR magazine saying that the passengers of
> a
> Cirrus were saved when they pulled the chute after the pilot had a stroke.
>
> There might be more to it than slick marketing after all. I bet those
> passengers think so anyway.
>
> BDS
>
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gwengler,
>>
>> > You may have a point here which supports my initial theory that just
>> > having an additional safety feature does not necessarily make an
>> > airplane safer.
>> >
>>
>> I agree. And the Cirrus stuff is, of course, marketing. Clever
>> marketing.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>
>
>

[gpsman]

rps wrote: <brevity snip>

> 2) CAPS can be deployed only after getting the speed down to about 133
> knots. His cruise speed would probably have been about 180 knots. If
> he decided to deploy the CAPS, his wing may have stalled while he
> attempted to get his airspeed down to CAPS deployment speed.

I've never flown in icing conditions... but ISTM he'd be able to slow
his airspeed to 133kts. via the elevator and flaps... as long as the
wing was still flying, that is. The Cirrus site mentions CAPS has been
"flight tested -to- 135kts".

The POH reads: Once the decision is made to deploy CAPS, the following
actions
should be taken:
1. Airspeed.......MINIMUM POSSIBLE

The maximum demonstrated deployment speed is 133 KIAS.
Reducing airspeed allows minimum parachute loads and prevents
structural overload and possible parachute failure.
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/servicecenters/TechPubs/pdf/POH/sr22/pdf/20880-001InfoManual.pdf
or http://tinyurl.com/sz3sj

No mention that CAPS -can't- or -won't- deploy above 133kts.

> However, we don't yet know why he
> didn't pull the 'chute handle and so can't yet call him stupid for that.

We don't yet know if he yanked the handle and it didn't deploy. Also
from the POH:

· WARNING ·
Jerking or rapidly pulling the activation T-handle will greatly
increase the pull forces required to activate the rocket. Use a firm
and steady pulling motion - a "chin-up" type pull enhances
successful activation.

Pretty tough to remember -that- as the ground is rushing toward you and
the cabin is filling with odors, I'll bet...
-----

- gpsman

[Darkwing]

"Terry" > wrote in message
...
> What's with the SR22 crashes? Another one went down Arizona yesterday.


Seems like pilots overestimate the performance of the aircraft to me. With
the chute as "backup" and the advanced electronics I think pilots are
entering into a false sense of security that this advanced aircraft can
handle wahtever you throw at it. Also it seems like Cirrus is promoting the
aircraft to low time, high cash pilots, it is the new Bonanza! I'll stick to
the C172 and occasional trips around the practice area in a C182. Maybe I am
a wuss but I'm not wild about any aircraft in IMC weather that doesn't have
the performance to climb to 25,000 feet. Flying in the **** with a small
performance envelope is not inside my comfort zone.

-----------------------------------------
DW

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Gravity.

I thought Cirrus aircraft were exempted from gravity.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

gwengler writes:

> You're probably right. But the point is, this is not supposed to
> happen to Cirrus airplanes! Because as soon as a pilot gets into
> trouble he has the option to pull the chute and save the day.

I thought my simulator was supposed to more closely approach real
life, but now it sounds like real life is trying to approach
simulation. If a problem develops, just pull the handle and start a
new game ...

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Stefan writes:

> And this is exactly the dangerous mindset.

Agreed. The safe way to fly is as if the parachute didn't exist. You
only pull the parachute when the alternative would be death. If you
are thinking about the parachute all the time, it might make you
reckless.

You see the same thing with antiskid braking systems. People know
they are there and assume that the systems will always stop them
safely, even in slippery conditions. What they overlook is that the
systems don't change the minimum stopping distances--they just help
ensure that those minimums are achievable. If the car can't stop
before hitting the tree, antiskid braking won't help.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Logajan]

Terry > wrote:
> What's with the SR22 crashes? Another one went down Arizona yesterday.

It's the seatbelts. Aircraft manufacturers add those worthless devices to
cars and planes, yet people keep dying in car and plane crashes. Seatbelts
clearly add a false sense of security and are therefore responsible for the
accidents.

(The above is not meant to be taken seriously.)

[Kingfish]

Darkwing wrote:
> Seems like pilots overestimate the performance of the aircraft to me. With
> the chute as "backup" and the advanced electronics I think pilots are
> entering into a false sense of security that this advanced aircraft can
> handle wahtever you throw at it.

That's pretty much what I arrived at too.

> Also it seems like Cirrus is promoting the aircraft to low time, high cash pilots,

While I can't back it up I get that impression too, and my gut tells me
the training might not be adequate for these fast airplanes when being
flown by low time pilots


> Maybe I am a wuss but I'm not wild about any aircraft in IMC weather that doesn't have >the performance to climb to 25,000 feet. Flying in the **** with a small performance >envelope is not inside my comfort zone.

I've been spoiled by the Pilatus and am definitely more on edge when in
IMC in something small & slow. It's definitely an adjustment when
you're used to a 2,000fpm+ climb rate and find yourself in a plane
that's struggling to make 700fpm

[Brian[_1_]]

I have to agree, I think it is very difficult to get in a brand new
Cirrus with a brand new glass panel with moving maps displayes and
understand that it really doesn't have an more capabilty than a 40 year
old Bonanza with 20 year old avionics in it. (Add a Garmin 155 if want
to have all the same capabilty)

Brian




Darkwing wrote:
> "Terry" > wrote in message
> ...
> > What's with the SR22 crashes? Another one went down Arizona yesterday.
>
>
> Seems like pilots overestimate the performance of the aircraft to me. With
> the chute as "backup" and the advanced electronics I think pilots are
> entering into a false sense of security that this advanced aircraft can
> handle wahtever you throw at it. Also it seems like Cirrus is promoting the
> aircraft to low time, high cash pilots, it is the new Bonanza! I'll stick to
> the C172 and occasional trips around the practice area in a C182. Maybe I am
> a wuss but I'm not wild about any aircraft in IMC weather that doesn't have
> the performance to climb to 25,000 feet. Flying in the **** with a small
> performance envelope is not inside my comfort zone.
>
> -----------------------------------------
> DW

[Kingfish]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> It's the seatbelts. Aircraft manufacturers add those worthless devices to
> cars and planes ...snip...

I've not heard of this Cirrus/GM relationship...

[Jim Logajan]

"Kingfish" > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> It's the seatbelts. Aircraft manufacturers add those worthless
>> devices to cars and planes ...snip...
>
> I've not heard of this Cirrus/GM relationship...

Nor I. Elide the "Aircraft" part so that it states "Manufacturers add those
worthless devices...."

The automatic line-wrapping feature of my newsreader program lead me to a
false sense of security. :-)

[Larry Dighera]

On 26 Oct 2006 10:03:56 -0700, "gpsman" > wrote
in . com>:

>http://www.cirrusdesign.com/servicecenters/TechPubs/pdf/POH/sr22/pdf/20880-=
>001InfoManual.pdf
>or http://tinyurl.com/sz3sj

Does the POH mention when it may be appropriate to deploy the 'chute?
I thought it was for use in spin recovery.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Oct 2006 10:03:56 -0700, "gpsman" > wrote
> in . com>:
>
>>http://www.cirrusdesign.com/servicecenters/TechPubs/pdf/POH/sr22/pdf/20880-=
>>001InfoManual.pdf
>>or http://tinyurl.com/sz3sj
>
> Does the POH mention when it may be appropriate to deploy the 'chute?
> I thought it was for use in spin recovery.


From the manual


CAPS Deployment

The Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) should be activated in

the event of a life-threatening emergency where CAPS deployment is

determined to be safer than continued flight and landing.

.. WARNING .

CAPS deployment is expected to result in loss of the airframe

and, depending upon adverse external factors such as high

deployment speed, low altitude, rough terrain or high wind

conditions, may result in severe injury or death to the

occupants. Because of this, CAPS should only be activated

when any other means of handling the emergency would not

protect the occupants from serious injury.

.. Caution .

Expected impact in a fully stabilized deployment is equivalent

to a drop from approximately 13 feet.

.. Note .

Several possible scenarios in which the activation of the

CAPS would be appropriate are discussed in Section 10 -

Safety Information, of this Handbook. These include:

.. Mid-air collision

.. Structural failure

.. Loss of control

.. Landing in inhospitable terrain

.. Pilot incapacitation

All pilots should carefully review the information on CAPS

activation and deployment in Section 10 before operating the

airplane.

[Dan[_1_]]

Does anyone have any info on whether the plane had TKS installed. I
know it's not "known-ice" but hopefully it could help extricate somone
from a situation like this.

--Dan


Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:17:49 -0700, Terry > wrote
> in >:
>
> >What's with the SR22 crashes? Another one went down Arizona yesterday.
>
>
> It looks like that slick wing doesn't like ice:
> http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/events01/media/01_121LD.txt

[Peter Clark]

There was a case last year IIRC where a Cirrus popped the chute
because it was all iced up. The guy even filed a PIREP on the way
down...

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:11:40 GMT, "BDS" > wrote:

>There was a blurb in the latest IFR magazine saying that the passengers of a
>Cirrus were saved when they pulled the chute after the pilot had a stroke.
>
>There might be more to it than slick marketing after all. I bet those
>passengers think so anyway.
>
>BDS
>
>
>"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>> Gwengler,
>>
>> > You may have a point here which supports my initial theory that just
>> > having an additional safety feature does not necessarily make an
>> > airplane safer.
>> >
>>
>> I agree. And the Cirrus stuff is, of course, marketing. Clever
>> marketing.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>
>

[Kingfish]

Mxsmanic wrote:
What they overlook is that the systems don't change the minimum
stopping distances--they just help ensure that those minimums are
achievable. If the car can't stop
> before hitting the tree, antiskid braking won't help.
>

You're half right here. It's true ABS won't shorten stopping distances,
unless you can singlehandedly alter physics. What it does do is allow
you to maintain steering control while in a panic stop by not locking
up the wheels

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:56:50 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in >:


>> Does the POH mention when it may be appropriate to deploy the 'chute?
>> I thought it was for use in spin recovery.
>
>
>From the manual
>
[excerpt deleted]

Thank you.

What does the POH say about CAPS deployment for spin recovery?

[Peter Duniho]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> You're half right here. It's true ABS won't shorten stopping distances,
> unless you can singlehandedly alter physics. What it does do is allow
> you to maintain steering control while in a panic stop by not locking
> up the wheels

Actually, depending on the conditions, having ABS allows the maximum
available braking performance to actually be achieved. Few drivers (or
pilots) are actually capable of using the brakes to maximum effectiveness
without ABS. They either don't brake hard enough, or they brake so hard
that the wheels lock up and lose control.

You're right that it's also useful (and IMHO most important, as far as ABS
features go) to be able to maintain steering control. But ABS also can
allow for nearly maximal performance during braking as well.

So while ABS doesn't change the *theoretical* minimum stopping distance, it
does change the practical minimum stopping distance for most drivers.

Pete

[Dave Stadt]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Terry wrote:
>> What's with the SR22 crashes? Another one went down Arizona yesterday.
>
> I doubt there's any more of them crashing than Pipers or Cessnas. They
> do seem to make more of a stir when they do because of the national
> attention focused on them. Now that Cirrus has overtaken Cessna in
> production the fleet is getting larger fairly quickly.


The size of the Cirrus fleet isn't even a flea on an elephant compared to
the Cessna fleet.

[John Clear]

In article >,
Peter Duniho > wrote:
>
>Actually, depending on the conditions, having ABS allows the maximum
>available braking performance to actually be achieved. Few drivers (or
>pilots) are actually capable of using the brakes to maximum effectiveness
>without ABS. They either don't brake hard enough, or they brake so hard
>that the wheels lock up and lose control.

I saw a show years ago when ABS was just becoming widely available
where they put Emerson Fittapaldi (then a current IndyCar driver)
with ABS, and did braking tests with and without the ABS. Even a
professional race car driver couldn't do better then the ABS,
although he came close to matching it.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Thomas Borchert]

Brian,

> (Add a Garmin 155 if want
> to have all the same capabilty)
>

Sorry, but that's just BS.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Dave,

> The size of the Cirrus fleet isn't even a flea on an elephant compared to
> the Cessna fleet.
>

You're comparing apples and oranges. Try again with new Cessnas (since 1996
or whenever they started building their antiques again) and Cirruses.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bds,

> There might be more to it than slick marketing after all.
>

Oh, I'm sure there is. It's just that the chute by itself doesn't make
the plane safer, as the quoted marketing blurb alluded. It takes a
pilot to do that. And pilots often don't do the right thing.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jim,

> It's the seatbelts. Aircraft manufacturers add those worthless devices to
> cars and planes, yet people keep dying in car and plane crashes. Seatbelts
> clearly add a false sense of security and are therefore responsible for the
> accidents.
>
> (The above is not meant to be taken seriously.)
>

I like your style. Oh, and smoking is not dangerous. Never was.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Stefan]

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

> Oh, I'm sure there is. It's just that the chute by itself doesn't make
> the plane safer, as the quoted marketing blurb alluded.

Actually, it does. At least, I tend to believe so, after having lost
three friends in midairs (two events).

Stefan

[Dave Stadt]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dave,
>
>> The size of the Cirrus fleet isn't even a flea on an elephant compared to
>> the Cessna fleet.
>>
>
> You're comparing apples and oranges. Try again with new Cessnas (since
> 1996
> or whenever they started building their antiques again) and Cirruses.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

It's not me comparing apples to oranges it's those comparing Cessna
accidents to Cirrus accidents forgetting the Cessna fleet is near infinite
compared to the Cirrus fleet.

[Thomas Borchert]

Stefan,

> At least, I tend to believe so, after having lost
> three friends in midairs (two events).
>

Actually, that's the one situation the chute hasn't proven itself in
yet. Nobody knows if it will even work after your average mid-air. But
it's a hope, for sure. Still requires the pilot to pull, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:56:50 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in >:
>
>
>>> Does the POH mention when it may be appropriate to deploy the 'chute?
>>> I thought it was for use in spin recovery.
>>
>>
>>From the manual
>>
> [excerpt deleted]
>
> Thank you.
>
> What does the POH say about CAPS deployment for spin recovery?
>

You know Larry the URL for the manual was in the upstream post but since I
downloaded the whole book.

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:36:26 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in >:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:56:50 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in >:
>>
>>
>>>> Does the POH mention when it may be appropriate to deploy the 'chute?
>>>> I thought it was for use in spin recovery.
>>>
>>>
>>>From the manual
>>>
>> [excerpt deleted]
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> What does the POH say about CAPS deployment for spin recovery?
>>
>
>You know Larry the URL for the manual was in the upstream post but since I
>downloaded the whole book.

Thank you for the information.

>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
>

That seems to confirm, that the CAPS was required to the meet spin
recovery requirements for FAA certification of the SR22.

But if the aircraft is below 1,000', the CAPS system is probably not
an option.

Thank you again for providing the SR22 POH quotes.

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> But if the aircraft is below 1,000', the CAPS system is probably not
> an option.
>

IF you are in a fully developed spin (1 full turn, as certification
requires and the handbook says), traditional spin recovery isn't an
option either at 1000 feet. There is a limit to altitude loss during
recovery to meet certification. The chute obviously qualifies.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Kingfish]

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> It's not me comparing apples to oranges it's those comparing Cessna
> accidents to Cirrus accidents forgetting the Cessna fleet is near infinite
> compared to the Cirrus fleet.

No argument there, it really is apples & oranges. My point in making
the Piper and Cessna comparison is that the Cirruses (Cirri?) aren't
crashing any more often than other makes, it just seems that way
because of heightened interested in the type, (especially after the NYC
crash) thereby an accident involving a Cirrus stands out more. Maybe
it's a perception thing? With Cirrus cranking out so many planes now,
and surpassing Cessna in piston single sales/production, I'd expect
we'll hear of more accidents simply due to the rapidly expanding fleet.
I don't think it's an indictment of the safety of Cirrus aircraft,
though.

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
> While that has happened there have also been cases where non-pilots were
> talked down when the exact same thing happened to the pilot. The
> difference being that the plane was flyable again when landed without a
> chute.
>
> Airsafety had a report earlier this year of a non-pilot landing a Twin
> Commander but the link is broken.
>
> http://www.airsafety.com/reports/ROW060215A.pdf
>

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050510X00588&key=1

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:06:45 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote in
>:

>Larry,
>
>> But if the aircraft is below 1,000', the CAPS system is probably not
>> an option.
>>
>
>IF you are in a fully developed spin (1 full turn, as certification
>requires and the handbook says), traditional spin recovery isn't an
>option either at 1000 feet. There is a limit to altitude loss during
>recovery to meet certification. The chute obviously qualifies.

Obviously.

However, if you have, for example, an engine failure at 400' on
departure, the CAPS is not an option.

My point is, that CAPS is not an option at the times it's needed most:
below 920'. So to characterize the SR22 CAPS as a safety enhancement
(for other than spin recovery, and possibly a MAC, structural failure,
loss of control, and landing in inhospitable terrain, *if* they occur
above 920') is inappropriate. (And CAPS use for recovery in the event
of pilot incapacitation is a judgment call specific to the incident.)

Personally, I would characterize the SR22 CAPS solely as a
certification requirement for spin recovery, with limited utility in a
few other emergency situations, and certainly not as a "panic-button"
capable of rescuing the flight from all perils.

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> However, if you have, for example, an engine failure at 400' on
> departure, the CAPS is not an option.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

> My point is, that CAPS is not an option at the times it's needed most:
> below 920'.

That's not what your own quote says. It says it is not an option if you
arrive at less than 920 feet after one full turn in a spin.

> So to characterize the SR22 CAPS as a safety enhancement
> (for other than spin recovery, and possibly a MAC, structural failure,
> loss of control, and landing in inhospitable terrain, *if* they occur
> above 920') is inappropriate.

Well, the people saved by it in different circumstances would probably
beg to differ.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Thomas Borchert > posted:

> Larry,
>
>> But if the aircraft is below 1,000', the CAPS system is probably not
>> an option.
>>
>
> IF you are in a fully developed spin (1 full turn, as certification
> requires and the handbook says), traditional spin recovery isn't an
> option either at 1000 feet.
>
Why not? Are you implying that 1 full turn spin loses too much altitude,
and if so, based on what? Some planes spin pretty flat, while others are
pretty nose-down, which type is the SR22?

Neil

[Thomas Borchert]

Neil,

> Why not?
>

Because you won't make a recovery from a fully developed spin in less
than 920 feet with a plane of the approximate weight and size of the
Cirrus, say a Bo. Remember, you have done one complete turn in a fully
developed spin. Then you start counting when you apply rudder in the
opposite direction and push the yoke (or whatever conventional recovery
is to you). From that point to a positive climb rate, there's no way
you'll lose less than 920 feet of altitude. And certification doesn't
even require you to.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:18:30 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote in
>:

>Larry,
>
>> However, if you have, for example, an engine failure at 400' on
>> departure, the CAPS is not an option.
>
>How do you arrive at that conclusion?

The way I read the quote from the SR22 POH, it requires 920' to fully
deploy the CAPS. Do you have information to the contrary?

>> My point is, that CAPS is not an option at the times it's needed most:
>> below 920'.
>
>That's not what your own quote says. It says it is not an option if you
>arrive at less than 920 feet after one full turn in a spin.

So you feel that less altitude would be required for full CAPS
deployment if the aircraft hadn't archived "one full turn in a spin?"
You'll have to cite some objective information that supports that
notion before I'll change my opinion from what is written in the SR22
POH.

>> So to characterize the SR22 CAPS as a safety enhancement
>> (for other than spin recovery, and possibly a MAC, structural failure,
>> loss of control, and landing in inhospitable terrain, *if* they occur
>> above 920') is inappropriate.
>
>Well, the people saved by it in different circumstances would probably
>beg to differ.

Are you able to provide any credible information about the
circumstances to which you refer?

[Darkwing]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Terry > wrote:
>> What's with the SR22 crashes? Another one went down Arizona yesterday.
>
> It's the seatbelts. Aircraft manufacturers add those worthless devices to
> cars and planes, yet people keep dying in car and plane crashes. Seatbelts
> clearly add a false sense of security and are therefore responsible for
> the
> accidents.
>
> (The above is not meant to be taken seriously.)

Yeah they just take up useful load if you ask me!

------------------------------------------
DW

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> However, if you have, for example, an engine failure at 400' on
> departure, the CAPS is not an option.
>
> My point is, that CAPS is not an option at the times it's needed most:
> below 920'. So to characterize the SR22 CAPS as a safety enhancement
> (for other than spin recovery, and possibly a MAC, structural failure,
> loss of control, and landing in inhospitable terrain, *if* they occur
> above 920') is inappropriate.

The Nall Report (NR) indicates the phase of flight with the most fatal
pilot-caused accidents (~78% of all fatal accidents) is during what it
calls "maneuvering" (~23%). Since the NR categorizes descent/approach,
landing, go-around, and takeoff/climb distinct from maneuvering, the
maneuvering category would appear to encompass flight regimes presumably at
pattern and cruise altitudes. I would presume then that CAPS would be a
viable option in a large fraction of these cases.

Looking at the way the NR categorizes pilot caused fatal accidents, it
seems to me that about half the categories are such that the fatalities
could in theory have been prevented with CAPS. So CAPS might have been
potentually life-saving in about 0.78*0.5 = ~40% of all fatal GA accidents.

The non-pilot caused accidents allegedly accounted for ~22% of accidents,
but the fraction that happened at altitudes sufficient for effective CAPS
deployment is unknown. Assuming SWAG of ~50% of those 22% happened at
altitudes high enough for CAPS use, then CAPS would be potentially life-
saving in ~11%.

So in theory if all GA craft were equipped with CAPS and pilots were
trained in their effective use, they might cut the number of fatalities in
GA accidents by roughly half.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:22:34 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> However, if you have, for example, an engine failure at 400' on
>> departure, the CAPS is not an option.
>>
>> My point is, that CAPS is not an option at the times it's needed most:
>> below 920'. So to characterize the SR22 CAPS as a safety enhancement
>> (for other than spin recovery, and possibly a MAC, structural failure,
>> loss of control, and landing in inhospitable terrain, *if* they occur
>> above 920') is inappropriate.
>
>The Nall Report (NR) indicates the phase of flight with the most fatal
>pilot-caused accidents (~78% of all fatal accidents) is during what it
>calls "maneuvering" (~23%). Since the NR categorizes descent/approach,
>landing, go-around, and takeoff/climb distinct from maneuvering, the
>maneuvering category would appear to encompass flight regimes presumably at
>pattern and cruise altitudes. I would presume then that CAPS would be a
>viable option in a large fraction of these cases.

Pattern altitude for light GA aircraft is typically 800' AGL, so it's
not clear that SR22 CAPS would fully deploy from that altitude. Even
at a 1,000' pattern altitude, the aircraft would likely be below 920'
before the PIC realized the necessity for deploying the SR22 CAPS.

What sort of maneuvering above 920' AGL would cause a fatal mishap,
other than a MAC?

>Looking at the way the NR categorizes pilot caused fatal accidents, it
>seems to me that about half the categories are such that the fatalities
>could in theory have been prevented with CAPS.

So you feel that the PIC in those fatal accidents would have had
sufficient altitude to assess the nature of the emergency and decide
to deploy the CAPS with 920' feet to spare?

I'm having a difficult time thinking of what the cause of such
accidents might be. CFIT doesn't fit. I agree, that a MAC might
permit a pilot to deploy a CAPS, unless it was similar to November 16,
2000 C-172 vs F-16 MAC that disintegrated the pilot and his Skyhawk.

>So CAPS might have been
>potentually life-saving in about 0.78*0.5 = ~40% of all fatal GA accidents.

I'd have to know more about the nature of the criteria you used in
arriving at that conclusion before I'd accept it.

>The non-pilot caused accidents allegedly accounted for ~22% of accidents,
>but the fraction that happened at altitudes sufficient for effective CAPS
>deployment is unknown. Assuming SWAG of ~50% of those 22% happened at
>altitudes high enough for CAPS use, then CAPS would be potentially life-
>saving in ~11%.
>
>So in theory if all GA craft were equipped with CAPS and pilots were
>trained in their effective use, they might cut the number of fatalities in
>GA accidents by roughly half.

Only if one accepts your assumptions.

[Jose[_1_]]

> So in theory if all GA craft were equipped with CAPS and pilots were
> trained in their effective use, they might cut the number of fatalities in
> GA accidents by roughly half.

Maybe. But it costs weight and money. This means that, for the same
flight, the plane carries less gas, and this is the leading cause of
crashes. One could fly with more fuel stops, this increases the number
of landings and takeoffs (and low altitude flight). Since there's less
money, the airplane might be less well equipped, and the pilot might be
less well trained. This increases the risk too.

Everything comes from somewhere.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Stefan writes:

> At least, I tend to believe so, after having lost
> three friends in midairs (two events).

Losing them without a parachute doesn't mean that a parachute would
have saved them.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kingfish writes:

> You're half right here. It's true ABS won't shorten stopping distances,
> unless you can singlehandedly alter physics. What it does do is allow
> you to maintain steering control while in a panic stop by not locking
> up the wheels

But very often the obstacle to be avoided is directly ahead of the
car. And any attempt to turn the vehicle in a panic stop greatly
increases safe braking distance (because wheels that turn are much
more likely to skid or lock).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> So while ABS doesn't change the *theoretical* minimum stopping distance, it
> does change the practical minimum stopping distance for most drivers.

Unfortunately, most drivers don't know the minimum stopping distance
to begin with, and dramatically underestimate it, or simply choose to
ignore the correct distance for convenience. ABS often will not help
them, unless they get lucky.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Lee]

Jim Logajan > wrote:

>So in theory if all GA craft were equipped with CAPS and pilots were
>trained in their effective use, they might cut the number of fatalities in
>GA accidents by roughly half.

Or at a far lesser cost (and viable since CAPS may not be retrofit to
all aircraft) is that pilots quit screwing up in a manner that kills
them and others onboard.

Ron Lee

[Peter Dohm]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Larry,
>
> > But if the aircraft is below 1,000', the CAPS system is probably not
> > an option.
> >
>
> IF you are in a fully developed spin (1 full turn, as certification
> requires and the handbook says), traditional spin recovery isn't an
> option either at 1000 feet. There is a limit to altitude loss during
> recovery to meet certification. The chute obviously qualifies.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
I presume that we are still just talking about fast and slick aircraft;
because the Cessna 150M and Cessna 152 can both be spun a full turn,
recovered and flown away losing half that altitude. However, the point is
essentially moot, since no pilot who was that proficient in the recovery
would allow it to happen.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

> > So in theory if all GA craft were equipped with CAPS and pilots were
> > trained in their effective use, they might cut the number of fatalities
in
> > GA accidents by roughly half.
>
> Maybe. But it costs weight and money. This means that, for the same
> flight, the plane carries less gas, and this is the leading cause of
> crashes. One could fly with more fuel stops, this increases the number
> of landings and takeoffs (and low altitude flight). Since there's less
> money, the airplane might be less well equipped, and the pilot might be
> less well trained. This increases the risk too.
>
> Everything comes from somewhere.
>
> Jose
> --
A lot of excellent points. Like many of the safety features on cars, I
suspect that it would be essentially a wash in terms of safety--at a
substantial increase in cost.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

> Neil,
>
> > Why not?
> >
>
> Because you won't make a recovery from a fully developed spin in less
> than 920 feet with a plane of the approximate weight and size of the
> Cirrus, say a Bo. Remember, you have done one complete turn in a fully
> developed spin. Then you start counting when you apply rudder in the
> opposite direction and push the yoke (or whatever conventional recovery
> is to you). From that point to a positive climb rate, there's no way
> you'll lose less than 920 feet of altitude. And certification doesn't
> even require you to.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
I did a little adding machine calculation,
and you appear to be correct. :-(

Obviously a situation to be avoided.

Peter

[Peter R.]

Ron Lee > wrote:

> Sounds like pilot stupidity. Wasn't he aware that the parachute
> system offers to save them from doing other stupid things like flying
> into icing conditions?

Wasn't this accident close to the location of last year's Cirrus icing
accident (where in that case the 'chute was pulled and ripped from the
aircraft)?

--
Peter

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Unfortunately, most drivers don't know the minimum stopping distance
> to begin with, and dramatically underestimate it, or simply choose to
> ignore the correct distance for convenience.
>

I just have to ask: Do you hold a driver's license?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> The way I read the quote from the SR22 POH, it requires 920' to fully
> deploy the CAPS. Do you have information to the contrary?

No, it'S just not the way I read it. I read it as saying it requires 920
feet coming out of a full spin turn. And that's what it says.
>
> So you feel that less altitude would be required for full CAPS
> deployment if the aircraft hadn't archived "one full turn in a spin?"

Would be kind of logical, wouldn't it, that there's a difference to pulling
at straight and level? But I can't prove it.

> >> So to characterize the SR22 CAPS as a safety enhancement
> >> (for other than spin recovery, and possibly a MAC, structural failure,
> >> loss of control, and landing in inhospitable terrain, *if* they occur
> >> above 920') is inappropriate.
> >
> Are you able to provide any credible information about the
> circumstances to which you refer?

The NTSB records will provide with several accidents that did not include
(your list following) spin recovery, MAC, structural failure, LOC and
inhospitable terrain. That alone, though, is a pretty good list of stuff to
be saved from, don't you think?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)