Cirrus spin recovery was tested. Was: Why does airspeed change when I adjust the prop?

[Jim Logajan]

"Kev" > wrote:
> I did run across one quote from the Cirrus president, who said he
> "wished they'd demonstrated a normal spin recovery to the FAA".
> That's interesting, because it sounds like it's at least possible.

Mark Twain once noted "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the
truth is putting on its shoes." The idea that "Cirrus aircraft can't be
recovered from a spin" seems to be the kind of thing that Twain had in
mind. So here's a link to a Cirrus web page stating that spin recovery was
accomplished on both the SR20 and SR22:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/pilotsworld/safety/article_06_03.aspx

"Question: Has any spin testing been conducted in the CIRRUS airplanes?

CIRRUS Engineer: Yes, CIRRUS has done spin testing in both the SR20 and the
SR22, and we've done a variety of spins in both models. But, that's
different than saying we've completed the entire spin matrix in each plane
in every conceivable condition and configuration - because we haven't.
Eventually we decided to take the logical stand that spin prevention is the
key to preventing needless fatalities, and attempts to make the airplane
spin-certified would just muddy the waters."

Much of the article discusses the engineering tradeoffs Cirrus chose and
why they chose them. I found it interesting and useful.

Hopefully with its shoes on, the truth can make up some ground.

[Stealth Pilot]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 06:53:27 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>"Kev" > wrote:
>> I did run across one quote from the Cirrus president, who said he
>> "wished they'd demonstrated a normal spin recovery to the FAA".
>> That's interesting, because it sounds like it's at least possible.
>
>Mark Twain once noted "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the
>truth is putting on its shoes." The idea that "Cirrus aircraft can't be
>recovered from a spin" seems to be the kind of thing that Twain had in
>mind. So here's a link to a Cirrus web page stating that spin recovery was
>accomplished on both the SR20 and SR22:
>
>http://www.cirrusdesign.com/pilotsworld/safety/article_06_03.aspx
>
>"Question: Has any spin testing been conducted in the CIRRUS airplanes?
>
>CIRRUS Engineer: Yes, CIRRUS has done spin testing in both the SR20 and the
>SR22, and we've done a variety of spins in both models. But, that's
>different than saying we've completed the entire spin matrix in each plane
>in every conceivable condition and configuration - because we haven't.
>Eventually we decided to take the logical stand that spin prevention is the
>key to preventing needless fatalities, and attempts to make the airplane
>spin-certified would just muddy the waters."
>
>Much of the article discusses the engineering tradeoffs Cirrus chose and
>why they chose them. I found it interesting and useful.
>
>Hopefully with its shoes on, the truth can make up some ground.

I have no axe to grind regarding the aircraft in question but the real
question is how much altitude is lost in the recovery?

it is pointless allowing a spin to develop in the belief that it is
recoverable only to find in the accident investigation that a spin
recovery typically takes 3,000ft (which it does in some aircraft) and
you were turning on to final in turbulence.

Stealth Pilot
Australia

[Thomas Borchert]

Stealth,

> and
> you were turning on to final in turbulence.
>

None of the comparable aircraft (e.g. the Bo) will be recoverable from
a fully developed spin in less than the minimum altitude required by
the chute (aroudn 800 feet, IIRC). However, getting a fully developed
spin on final will be difficult.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jim,

Thanks, very interesting.

> The idea that "Cirrus aircraft can't be
> recovered from a spin" seems to be the kind of thing that Twain had in
> mind.

<smart ass mode on>
And of course it can be recovered - by pulling the chute. It's a
certification requirement, remember? ;-)
<smart ass mode off>

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Tony]

I would agree that getting a fully developed spin on final would be
difficult, but if someone gets themselves in a circumstance where a
wing falls off (that's pilot talk -- I don't mean the wing fell off the
airplane, but that it stalled) because the PIC is turning too steeply
at too slow an airspeed, well I say if he's dumb enough to do that,
he's too dumb to recover and he's going to die and take an innocent
airplane with him.



..
On Jan 22, 5:00 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Stealth,
>
> > and
> > you were turning on to final in turbulence.None of the comparable aircraft (e.g. the Bo) will be recoverable from
> a fully developed spin in less than the minimum altitude required by
> the chute (aroudn 800 feet, IIRC). However, getting a fully developed
> spin on final will be difficult.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BDS]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote

> "Question: Has any spin testing been conducted in the CIRRUS airplanes?
>
> CIRRUS Engineer: Yes, CIRRUS has done spin testing in both the SR20 and
the
> SR22, and we've done a variety of spins in both models.

That's interesting. I wonder who the "test pilot(s)" were that thought that
it was "virtually unrecoverable", and why they made that comment.

BDS

[Stealth Pilot]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:00:07 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Stealth,
>
>> and
>> you were turning on to final in turbulence.
>>
>
>None of the comparable aircraft (e.g. the Bo) will be recoverable from
>a fully developed spin in less than the minimum altitude required by
>the chute (aroudn 800 feet, IIRC). However, getting a fully developed
>spin on final will be difficult.

you follow my discussion too literally.
anything below 4,000 ft in some aircraft will see you recover into the
ground.

parachutes as a failsafe mechanism. utter baloney.
you are aware that we have just had an accident in australia where the
two pilots popped the recovery parachute and died when it delivered
the aircraft upside down to the ground?
just think what it would be like to land on your head in a parachute
fall.

bandaids are a poor substitute to good design.
Stealth Pilot

[Thomas Borchert]

Stealth,

> parachutes as a failsafe mechanism. utter baloney.

Well, the world's aircraft certification authorities differ from your
view. Better clue them in...

> you are aware that we have just had an accident in australia where the
> two pilots popped the recovery parachute and died when it delivered
> the aircraft upside down to the ground?

No. You got a link to an accident report?

> bandaids are a poor substitute to good design.

And the connection to our discussion is?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bds,

> I wonder who the "test pilot(s)" were that thought that
> it was "virtually unrecoverable", and why they made that comment.
>

Not "why", but "if". That would be my first question.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Newps]

Stealth Pilot wrote:


> it is pointless allowing a spin to develop in the belief that it is
> recoverable only to find in the accident investigation that a spin
> recovery typically takes 3,000ft (which it does in some aircraft) and
> you were turning on to final in turbulence.


Base to final spin? Fatal in everything.

[Doug[_1_]]

Since it can't spin, pilots are afraid to stall it. Stall's are good
practice to learn where the performance envelope is. Spins are good to
have under your belt in case a stall goes bad.

I never understood Calculus I until I took Calculus II.

We all need to go one step further in training than we will actually go
in practice. That is how we build the confidence we need.

Having said that, Cirrus are selling. So they must be doing something
right.

[BDS[_2_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote

> Bds,
>
> > I wonder who the "test pilot(s)" were that thought that
> > it was "virtually unrecoverable", and why they made that comment.
> >
>
> Not "why", but "if". That would be my first question.

So far I have not been able to find anyone (alive) with actual experience
spinning a Cirrus to say how it reacts one way or the other. And, since
even the factory hedges on this point I have to believe there is something
there to be concerned about.

Would this stop me from buying one - no. Would it stop me from spinning one
on purpose knowing that I might have to trash it to recover - yes.

YMMV

BDS

[Dallas]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 06:53:27 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

> Eventually we decided to take the logical stand that spin prevention is the
> key to preventing needless fatalities, and attempts to make the airplane
> spin-certified would just muddy the waters."

Statements worded like this tend to make my BS detector go off.

--
>>> Dallas <<<

[Jim Logajan]

Dallas > wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 06:53:27 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
[A Cirrus Engineer wrote:]
>> Eventually we decided to take the logical stand that spin prevention
>> is the key to preventing needless fatalities, and attempts to make
>> the airplane spin-certified would just muddy the waters."
>
> Statements worded like this tend to make my BS detector go off.

First, I've added back in the attribution that indicates who actually wrote
the statement - as quoted it looks as if I had written the statement, which
is not correct.

Secondly, I can see no way to critically examine someone's "BS detector".
There are no facts presented, no line of reasoning stated. Its only purpose
here appears to be as a rhetorical device for the purpose of emotional
persuasion.

Is the argument that Cirrus engineers were too clueless or the company too
cheap to design their aircraft so that pilots could use traditional spin
recovery techniques? If either of those (or any other) are being asserted
then it would be helpful if they were explicitly stated so those assertions
can be critically examined.

[george]

Dallas wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 06:53:27 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
> > Eventually we decided to take the logical stand that spin prevention is the
> > key to preventing needless fatalities, and attempts to make the airplane
> > spin-certified would just muddy the waters."
>
> Statements worded like this tend to make my BS detector go off.

I agree

If the aircraft cannot be recovered from a spin who would buy such a
beast ?
flying schools training pilots in recovery from fully developed stalls
or training their own instructors often have inadvertant spins from
overcorrection..
And nowadays how many PPL's actually have spin training in their
logbook?
Buy Robins. They're built here in NZ great two seater trainer

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> If the aircraft cannot be recovered from a spin who would buy such a
> beast ?

People who think that a magic parachute will save them from anything.

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

[BDS[_2_]]

"george" > wrote

> If the aircraft cannot be recovered from a spin who would buy such a
> beast ?
> flying schools training pilots in recovery from fully developed stalls
> or training their own instructors often have inadvertant spins from
> overcorrection..

I found this on the Grumman Yankee which I recalled had a nasty reputation
for spins and yet was being used as a primary trainer:

"The original American Aviation AA-1 Yankee developed a poor reputation for
safety in its first years of production (1969-71). The aircraft was designed
purely to fill the role of a personal transportation and touring aircraft
and not a trainer, but many of the early production models were purchased by
flying schools. The appeal of the AA-1 to schools was obvious - compared to
the competition, the AA-1 was faster, cost less to purchase and maintain
and, most importantly, had more student-appeal with its sliding canopy and
fighter-like looks.

Many of the early school accidents were related to spin-training. Once the
AA-1 entered a fully developed spin and exceeded three turns, it was usually
not recoverable. The AA-1 had been spin-tested as part of its certification,
but in 1973 the FAA issued Airworthiness Directive 73-13-07 ordering the
aircraft placarded against spins."

BDS

[Peter Dohm]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Stealth,
>
> > and
> > you were turning on to final in turbulence.
> >
>
> None of the comparable aircraft (e.g. the Bo) will be recoverable from
> a fully developed spin in less than the minimum altitude required by
> the chute (aroudn 800 feet, IIRC). However, getting a fully developed
> spin on final will be difficult.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

In the article referenced at the beginning of this thread segment, the
"CIRRUS Engineer" mentioned his own first spin experience--in which he
really didn't know which direction he was spinning. That mirrors my own
first spin experience, with one very important difference--my first spin was
part of spin training which I received after I demanded it, while his first
spin was inadvertant and he was lucky enough to push the rudder the correct
direction and survive.

My point is that, recovery from the initail stall--or, in the worst case,
the incipient spin--requires recognition, which in turn requires recent
experience.

BTW, those spins looked pretty slow and lazy, in a C-152, after enough
practice.
Peter

[Vaughn Simon]

"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I never understood Calculus I until I took Calculus II.

I would have gained far more useful knowledge if they had allowed my to
skip Calc II and Calc III and just take Calc I three times.

Vaughn

[Peter Dohm]

> > I never understood Calculus I until I took Calculus II.
>
> I would have gained far more useful knowledge if they had allowed my
to
> skip Calc II and Calc III and just take Calc I three times.
>
>
Calc was NASTY. But that @##$%^&* Matrix Algebra was WORSE.

(That's all I remember--WORSE than NASTY !)

Peter

[Robert M. Gary]

BDS wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote
>
> > "Question: Has any spin testing been conducted in the CIRRUS airplanes?
> >
> > CIRRUS Engineer: Yes, CIRRUS has done spin testing in both the SR20 and
> the
> > SR22, and we've done a variety of spins in both models.
>
> That's interesting. I wonder who the "test pilot(s)" were that thought that
> it was "virtually unrecoverable", and why they made that comment.

I spoke with the Mooney test pilot who did spin testing in the 201. He
said it was not a fun day, and he didn't look forward to it. The manual
says that spins beyond one turn may not be recoverable (the test pilot
only had the guts to do one turn ;)). However, even at that it passed
the FAA's spin test requirements for normal category. Makes you wonder
what's up with the Cirrus that that wasn't even desirable.

-Robert

[JGalban[_8_]]

Robert wrote :
>The manual
>says that spins beyond one turn may not be recoverable (the test
pilot
>only had the guts to do one turn ).

That sounds fishy. One turn is all that the FAA requires, but I
doubt the pilot was scared to do more. When spin testing a design,
aircraft are normally equipped with spin chutes that deploy from the
tail and arrest the spin. They can then be jettisoned for a normal
approach and landing. They are pretty common in GA spin testing. My
bet is that the test pilot was instructed by Mooney to do the one
required turn and call it a day.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)


--
JGalban
Posted at www.flight.org

[Matt Barrow]

"BDS" > wrote in message
et...
>
> I found this on the Grumman Yankee which I recalled had a nasty reputation
> for spins and yet was being used as a primary trainer:
>
> "The original American Aviation AA-1 Yankee developed a poor reputation
> for
> safety in its first years of production (1969-71). The aircraft was
> designed
> purely to fill the role of a personal transportation and touring aircraft
> and not a trainer, but many of the early production models were purchased
> by
> flying schools. The appeal of the AA-1 to schools was obvious - compared
> to
> the competition, the AA-1 was faster, cost less to purchase and maintain
> and, most importantly, had more student-appeal with its sliding canopy and
> fighter-like looks.
>
> Many of the early school accidents were related to spin-training. Once the
> AA-1 entered a fully developed spin and exceeded three turns, it was
> usually
> not recoverable. The AA-1 had been spin-tested as part of its
> certification,
> but in 1973 the FAA issued Airworthiness Directive 73-13-07 ordering the
> aircraft placarded against spins."
>

Analysis and comparison of aircraft spin characteristics and the records:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2003/sp0302.html

[Jim Logajan]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> Analysis and comparison of aircraft spin characteristics and the
> records: http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2003/sp0302.html

An interesting article, thanks.

[Thomas Borchert]

Bds,

> Would this stop me from buying one - no. Would it stop me from spinning one
> on purpose knowing that I might have to trash it to recover - yes.
>

I'm with you. Now let my find that stash of cash...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

George,

> If the aircraft cannot be recovered from a spin who would buy such a
> beast ?
>

If that were the case, who'd certify it?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[john smith]

Peter Dohm wrote:
>>> I never understood Calculus I until I took Calculus II.
>> I would have gained far more useful knowledge if they had allowed my
> to
>> skip Calc II and Calc III and just take Calc I three times.

> Calc was NASTY. But that @##$%^&* Matrix Algebra was WORSE.

Calc I was easier than Theory of Caclulus (graduate level course that
involved proofs of the theory of limits)

[Jim Logajan]

john smith > wrote:
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>>>> I never understood Calculus I until I took Calculus II.
>>> I would have gained far more useful knowledge if they had
>>> allowed my
>> to
>>> skip Calc II and Calc III and just take Calc I three times.
>
>> Calc was NASTY. But that @##$%^&* Matrix Algebra was WORSE.
>
> Calc I was easier than Theory of Caclulus (graduate level course that
> involved proofs of the theory of limits)

In my day we had to solve non-linear differential equations while walking
from home uphill to class in a snowstorm. And then solve systems of
nonlinear second order differential equations while walking uphill from
class to home in a sandstorm! Those M. C. Escher topology landscapes were
tough on our three-year-old legs.

;-)

[john smith]

The only/best thing I got out of Theory of Calculus was my wife.

Jim Logajan wrote:
> john smith > wrote:
>> Peter Dohm wrote:
>>>>> I never understood Calculus I until I took Calculus II.
>>>> I would have gained far more useful knowledge if they had
>>>> allowed my
>>> to
>>>> skip Calc II and Calc III and just take Calc I three times.
>>> Calc was NASTY. But that @##$%^&* Matrix Algebra was WORSE.
>> Calc I was easier than Theory of Caclulus (graduate level course that
>> involved proofs of the theory of limits)
>
> In my day we had to solve non-linear differential equations while walking
> from home uphill to class in a snowstorm. And then solve systems of
> nonlinear second order differential equations while walking uphill from
> class to home in a sandstorm! Those M. C. Escher topology landscapes were
> tough on our three-year-old legs.
>
> ;-)

[Matt Barrow]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> The only/best thing I got out of Theory of Calculus was my wife.
>

Hmmm...me too. I married the professors daughter.