Cirrus... is it time for certification review?

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:26:33 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:


"john smith" wrote in message
...
With the recent spate of Cirrus accidents, the question arises, "Is it
time for a special certification review?"


Any aircraft has a baseline accident rate. I think the Cirrus has a higher
accident rate because a handful of pilots get themselves into a mindset
where they are willing to enter conditions they would have not entered
without the big round "insurance policy". Often they get away with pushing
things. Sometimes they don't, and those accidents are the ones that are
taking the Cirrus accident rate to higher than predicted levels.

The problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes.

I agree.

This discussion has come up at least twice a year since the SR-20 and
22 came out.

The SR-22 is a capable airplane. It has the BRS for "just in case", it
has the weeping wing deice for "just in case". It's not for know
icing, but just in case, it has the simple (er) set of engine and prop
controls, and it has fixed gear. BUT it has high wing loading. A
fair amount higher than most fixed gear pilots are used to and
noticeable heavier than a Bo. SR-22 loading is about 23.5 while the Bo
is on the order as about the same as a Cherokee at 17.2. The Bo wing
loading covers a wide rage from about 16 to 19# per sq ft. It's one
whale of a lot slipperier though than the Cherokee though.
This is almost 32% heavier loading compared to the Cherokee and the
lighter Bonanzas and Debonairs. That is not to be taken lightly and
there is no pun intended. Over a 30% change in wing loading is a
serious change particularly for low time pilots.

I thought I'd take the easy way out and do a quick search instead of
calculating a bunch of wing loadings. The first thing that came up
was: http://www.aviation-pilots.com/construct/thread41.html
Then I noted who did the calculations. Careful what you say as it's
sometimes surprising as to where it shows up. :-))

At any rate, the SR-22 has all these whiz bang safety features AND
it's fixed gear, but it has the performance of a Bonanza with up to
30% heavier wing loading. The safety features are great, but here we
have an airplane that is meant for, or should be meant for experienced
pilots used to high performance be it fixed or retract gear.

Put all these features in a plane and then put the typical pilot with
a fixed gear mentality behind the yoke and it could be a recipe for
disaster. I mean no disrespect to fixed gear pilots. The typical fixed
gear pilot moving to the SR-22 would be akin to me moving to a TBM-700
or 850 One is a pilot with a 130 MPH mind moving to a 200 MPH airplane
while I'd be the pilot with a 200 MPH mind moving to a 360 MPH
airplane. OTOH I do have at least a little experience with faster
planes with much higher wing loading, but not enough to be safe
though.

My point is that even with all the training provided and *required*
the pilots *appear* "to me" to be flying a 200 MPH high performance
airplane as if it were a 130 MPH airplane. As a purely personal
opinion, I think they should forget it has a fixed gear and fly it as
if it were a retract.

Actually I think the retract has an advantage. The SR-22 is slippery
with a high wing loading. In a Bonanza if you get into trouble they
tell you to put the gear down and forget the doors. When the gear goes
down even at pattern speed it feels like some one put the brakes on
although the brakes with those tires don't have that much authority on
the runway. :-))

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