More on Cessna's new "Cirrus Killer"

"buttman" wrote in message
oups.com...

If a car going 120 MPH hits another car going 120 MPH, you're dead. Two
planes going the same speed hitting each other is no diffrent,
parachute or not.


Pilots of combat aircraft have survived midairs at much higher speeds than
that.

"Michael Ware" wrote in
I'm sure it's similar to a chute that a 'meat missile wears. Depending on
the material, human 'chutes have to be repacked every 60 to 120 days. And,
I
have seen how the 'chutes on a Cirrus has to be packed, it's a ram that
shoves it into it's tube. It can't be packed by hand because they have put
such a large 'chute into such a small container. Just seems like it would
be
more of a liability and a PITA than anything.

http://brsparachutes.com/lifesave.html

I'm curious: has anyone trained a spouse (or other "frequent flying
companion") in chute operation for this purpose?

It is part of the standard passenger briefing in a Cirrus.
---
Ken Reed
N960CM

On 11 Nov 2005 18:27:09 -0800, "buttman" wrote:

If a car going 120 MPH hits another car going 120 MPH, you're dead. Two
planes going the same speed hitting each other is no diffrent,
parachute or not.


No argument there, however, your original statement was "The chances
of surviving a mid air is just about the same as the chances to
survive a car accident." Nothing in there about going 120 miles an
hour.

Michael

Marco Leon wrote:

I bet it will look surprisingly like a Cardinal with its already
aggressively-swept windshield. I wonder if they will incorporate a BRS chute
to take away one of Cirrus' main selling points.

If they do, I sure hope they make it an option and don't force everyone
to pay for one. I don't consider the BRS to be a selling point at all.


Matt

Stefan wrote:

Happy Dog wrote:

The pyrotechnique of the BRS is pretty much comparable to that of the
airbags in cars. Lots of accidents with them! (irony)


Cites?


Can you spell irony? Could I have been any clearer?

You were clear, just no correct.

Matt

Cecil Chapman wrote:

You heard wrong, at least according to Alan Klapmeier.


Here's the clip....

"And yet we get constant criticism about whether our airplane has gone
through FAA spin training. The fact of the matter is we looked at the
statistics, made a conscious choice during the design certification of the
airplane to say we can save more lives if we prevent the stall-spin event
from happening than if we allow it to happen and teach people how to recover
from it. If the airplane can't recover in the altitude available, then it
doesn't matter if you have shown the FAA that the airplane can recover.
So our approach was to prevent the accident from happening. We went to the
FAA and said we want the [equivalent level of safety - an alternate means of
complying with FAA certification criteria] for our improved stall
characteristics. In addition to the improved stall characteristics we wanted
them to include the parachute as an equivalent level of safety - in part
because we already had it on there and in part we had demonstrated that the
parachute could recover the airplane in less altitude loss in a spin than a
pilot could recover the airplane through normal recovery techniques."

Once again, in order to meet certification requirements since they wouldn't
or couldn't demonstrate spin recovery properties Cirrus had to come up with
an 'equivalent level of safety' which was the parachute.

I spoke with a Cirrus rep at a static display and they said the same thing,,
although he couched it in the guise of making the plane 'safer' he DID
indicate that the parachute was done as an alternative to
showing/demonstrating appropriate spin/stall characteristics.

This is certainly what I'd say if my design couldn't meet the FAA
stall/spin certification standards. :-)

Matt

Dan,

Doesn't the 'chute have to be dug out of the fiberglass every few years and
inspected/overhauled?


Every six or twelve. And the new gen Cirrii have an inspection cover for that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
Once again, in order to meet certification requirements since they
wouldn't or couldn't demonstrate spin recovery properties Cirrus had to
come up with an 'equivalent level of safety' which was the parachute.

I spoke with a Cirrus rep at a static display and they said the same
thing,, although he couched it in the guise of making the plane 'safer'
he DID indicate that the parachute was done as an alternative to
showing/demonstrating appropriate spin/stall characteristics.

This is certainly what I'd say if my design couldn't meet the FAA
stall/spin certification standards. :-)

And why should anyone give a **** about that? Really. I think the above
quote is crap. And I invite anyone to show me otherwise. In the meantime,
are 172s etc. for pussies because any idiot can recover them from a spin?
So many people here whine that a BRS is an unnecessary safety device. I
agree. But at what level or performance are you OK with spin recovery not
meeting FAA standards? Why does it matter in a 172 and not a 747?

moo

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

I don't consider the BRS to be a selling point at all.

You and I may not, but many Cirrus owners report that their wives
definitely do.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM