Another SR22

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

"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

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

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

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

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)

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)