Cirrus Deploys Chute Safely

In article , "Justin H"
wrote:

Why dont people make airplanes that will spin anymore?




They all do -- some just don't recover properly.

Trying to maintain altitude in a T storm, rather than maintaing attitude?

That happened to the Canada guy supposedly.


"Nathan Young" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:36:28 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Corky Scott" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:12:30 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

Yet another Cirrus flying in coffin corner at high altitude in
turbulence.
It seems to me that if airline pilots can be taught to do this without
falling out of the sky, then surely a Cirrus pilot can be taught the
same,
or at least, like the rest of us, just stay out of there.

How can you discern that from the story? Nothing in the text says
that the airplane was at high altitude, only that it got into a spin
due to extreme turbulence. Did you have access to additional
information not given in the story that the posted URL gives you?

My question would be: why was the pilot flying the airplane in a
thunderstorm? Was he flying in clouds and encountered an embedded
stormcell?

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/du...or/9723097.htm

Can you expand on your comment about coffin corner? My understanding
of coffin corner relates to jets flying high enough that their
indicated cruise speed is approach their indicated stall speed.

I looked up the SR22 POH for cruise speeds, stall speeds, etc.

If the SR22 was throttled back for economy or maneuvering.
47% pwr cruise @ 16000 feet = 162 KTAS
@ 16000 pressure altitude, 162 KTAS ~= 123 KIAS

Even at worst case CG and weight, stall speed for the SR22 is 70 KIAS.

That leaves margin of 53 kts. Seems ample to avoid a stall.

I do wonder what caused the pilot to stall @ 16kft.

-Nathan

I don't. I count at most one spin that could have been recoverable if
the aircraft
had conventional spin behavior (and it has yet been proven that the Cirrus
can't be
recovered by some control inputs). Your assertion of numerous crashes as
a result
of spins and/or deployments is not supported. Even by your own
optimistic view
it's only 4.



Only 4? That seems like a lot for such a small fleet to me. I am amazed at
how people seem to think that average is acceptable. A new design should be
SAFER than a new 182 other 40 year old design of similar class. Progress is
called for is it not?

btw, there are 2 in the last few months, this and canada.

Combine that with the guys that were "going out to practice stalls" and you
have 3 that I know of. I couldn't get through all your guys mishmash to see
what other one is arguable.

Pilot William Graham, 65, told authorities that his airplane, a Cirrus SR22,
stalled at 16,000 feet, then encountered turbulent weather at 13,000 to
15,000 feet that sent it into a spin, according to the Stockton Record
newspaper.


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:12:30 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

Yet another Cirrus flying in coffin corner at high altitude in
turbulence.
It seems to me that if airline pilots can be taught to do this without
falling out of the sky, then surely a Cirrus pilot can be taught the
same,
or at least, like the rest of us, just stay out of there.

How can you discern that from the story? Nothing in the text says
that the airplane was at high altitude, only that it got into a spin
due to extreme turbulence. Did you have access to additional
information not given in the story that the posted URL gives you?

My question would be: why was the pilot flying the airplane in a
thunderstorm? Was he flying in clouds and encountered an embedded
stormcell?

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/du...or/9723097.htm

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

I don't. I count at most one spin that could have been recoverable if
the aircraft
had conventional spin behavior (and it has yet been proven that the Cirrus
can't be
recovered by some control inputs). Your assertion of numerous crashes as
a result
of spins and/or deployments is not supported. Even by your own
optimistic view
it's only 4.

I plead guilty to the charge of pessimism. I think we are talking at cross
purposes here. I am going by what the manual says, which says that spins
have not been tested and the only approved method of recovery is by
deploying CAPS. I also think the number of stall/spin accidents is
excessive, given the small size of the fleet and the fact that the Cirrus is
supposed to be especially resistant to this type of accident.

I think the thing that really bothers me is the implicit criticism of the
pilot who merely followed the procedures in his manual, as well as the
religious like fervor with which some people attack anyone who dares to say
anything they perceive as negative about Cirrus, even if the information
comes from Cirrus itself.

I see no particular reason why the Cirrus should have any method of recovery
from spins other than deploying CAPS. If there is, fine, but why bother? If
the airplane is supposed to be spin and stall resistant and the pilots are
trained properly, then this type of accident should be much more rare than
it seems to be.

"Justin H" wrote in message
...
Why dont people make airplanes that will spin anymore?

Even the Cirrus will spin -- you just pull the CAPS handle to make it stop.
:-) Spin certification is an additional expense and the planes are expensive
enough as it is. Still, there are plenty of airplanes certified for spin
training, not least the ubiquitous Cessna 172.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Even the Cirrus will spin -- you just pull the CAPS handle to make it
stop.
:-) Spin certification is an additional expense and the planes are
expensive
enough as it is.

That is what I was getting at. Just because it isn't certified for spins
and Cirrus "says" it hasn't been tested for spins doesn't mean that Cirrus
has spun the hell out of it.

Not seeking spin certification and the recomendations of the manual appear
to me as a means to reduce liability. Consider the possible consequences of
Cirrus saying that it has great spin characteristics but it isn't certified
for spins and they don't recommend conventional recovery techniques.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:11:04 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Justin H" wrote in message
...
Why dont people make airplanes that will spin anymore?

Even the Cirrus will spin -- you just pull the CAPS handle to make it stop.
:-) Spin certification is an additional expense and the planes are expensive
enough as it is. Still, there are plenty of airplanes certified for spin
training, not least the ubiquitous Cessna 172.

The Cessna 172 is not certified under the same regulations as the Cirrus.
Unlike cars, once an airplane has received its type certificate, it does
not have to be redesigned whenever the regulations are updated.

The 172 came out in the '50s, and there's a good chance that the actual
type certificate is that of the Cessna 170, which came out in the '40s.
The 172 was certified under CAA regs, not under the modern Part 23 that the
Cirrus had to meet. Take a 1954 Ford and a 2004 Ford, and compare the
complexity, and the degree of Government standards that had to be met.

With that said, I am reminded of an article I read several years ago, about
the development of the Aviat Husky. While looking much like an older
design, it was a brand-new aircraft that was certified under the modern
Part 23. The article quoted the company president saying that the
certification process was not especially onerous or time/money consuming.

It'll be interesting to see how the Sport Pilot consensus standard comes
out, for the certification of Light Sport Aircraft. I can't see the
standard requiring in-depth flight testing...but maybe it will, and allow
the manufacturers to install a ballistic chute if they don't want to go
through the design/test effort.

Ron Wanttaja

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:30:32 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
om...

snip

Cirrus' manuals treat spins and steep spirals the same. In this case, the
airplane entered a steep spiral.



snip
8. Spatial disorientation followed by a high speed impact with the ground
(unlikely therefore
to have been a spin). SR22

No, but it would have been a steep spiral, which Cirrus seems to think is
the same thing.

Remind me to never purchase a plane whose manufacturer doesn't appear
to know the difference between a steep spiral and a spin.


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

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:41:57 GMT, "Dude" wrote:


I don't. I count at most one spin that could have been recoverable if
the aircraft
had conventional spin behavior (and it has yet been proven that the Cirrus
can't be
recovered by some control inputs). Your assertion of numerous crashes as
a result
of spins and/or deployments is not supported. Even by your own
optimistic view
it's only 4.



Only 4? That seems like a lot for such a small fleet to me. I am amazed at
how people seem to think that average is acceptable. A new design should be
SAFER than a new 182 other 40 year old design of similar class. Progress is
called for is it not?


Not necessarily. The Cirrus design is a *high performance* airplane
with "fixed feet". Pilots appear to be treating it like any other
"fixed gear" airplane which it's not.

On top of that they have the BRS and to cover an apparent and admitted
inability to recover from a spin.

So, you have, in general, pilots with a fixed gear attitude flying an
airplane with a retract attitude. It is deceptively slippery.
It is 20 knots faster than the typical Bo and is definitely not a
short field aircraft.
According to the pilots of the one on our field it is a plane you fly
on, much like the G-III or Lancair IV. They specifically say it lands
fast and is not a pane for full stall landings.

I would be very interested in how it handles accelerated stalls.

Overall in my opinion and it is just that, an opinion, the plane could
use a larger tail and rudder. Any plane that whose POH says "pull the
chute" in a spin, or steep spiral needs a bit more work.

btw, there are 2 in the last few months, this and canada.

Combine that with the guys that were "going out to practice stalls" and you
have 3 that I know of. I couldn't get through all your guys mishmash to see

Practicing stalls in high performance means that most likely, sooner
or later, it is going to drop a wing. An uncoordinated stall brings a
spin *entry*, but a real spin takes time to develop. If the pilot is
not familiar with spins and high performance he/she is most likely to
use the ailerons which will accelerate the entry.

I do not know how Cirrus handles this situation, but the new owners
out here said you do not do uncoordinated stalls in the SR-22.

That scares me a bit as sooner or later one will happen, be it in
rough air, or a mistake in practicing.

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

what other one is arguable.