![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Before I bought the Cirrus I did a search of all reported accidents in the
database. In fact, I was only able to find two spins. The rest were normal pilot errors, normal in the sense that they happen in every type flown by Part 91. Maybe there's another database but I used the link off the ASF site. I do think that the real risk factor has nothing at all to do with spin or stall characteristics. Sydney you pointed out the certification requirements and the recovery up to and into the incipient is normal. Beyond that, pull the chute. And you're absolutely right....in the pattern if you stall and flip it over you have one and only one correction available in my opinion and experience (see Rich Stowell's site). The real risk is all the gadgetry in the panel. That's the upshot of the TAA study as well. So I'm off to practice! "Snowbird" wrote in message om... "Tom S." wrote in message ... An incipient or initial spin takes considerably more altitude to recover than a stall. In some current aircraft certified in the normal category, it can take *over 1000 feet* with a sharp, proficient test pilot at the controls. Therefore it could be problematic for *any* aircraft, including those certified with a recovery procedure using normal controls, to recover from even an incipient spin in the traffic pattern. 1000 feet does not sounds like "3 seconds/ first turn".... Hi Tom, The catch, if you read the Part 23 certification standards, is that after 3 seconds or the first turn (whichever is LONGER), the plane must recover "w/in one additional turn". IOW, 1000-1500 ft may actually represent more than one turn of spin, if the plane in question really snaps around quickly, PLUS an additional turn to recover. Hope this clarifies? In his excellent out-of-print book "Stalls Spins and Safety", Sammy Mason points out that a plane which takes a full turn to recover after proper control inputs are applied has *lousy* spin characteristics. Well, apparently there are a number of planes certified in the normal category, which have just such *lousy* spin characteristics. My point is don't bet the rent that a plane certified in the normal category can recover from an incipient spin in less than 1000 ft. Reading the NTSB accident reports, it sounds like they've had quite a few spin accidents (some fatal, some not...I'm looking at ALL accidents/incidents, not just the FATAL ones) I defer to you here. I'm not familiar with the spin accident record of the Cirrus. My point was to direct attention to the actual certification requirements, and to correct any misapprehension that planes certified in the "normal" category to recover from an incipient spin with normal control inputs, necessarily have a realistic chance to recover from a low-altitude spin (say, at traffic pattern altitude) Hopefully I've done that. It does...but compare the apparent spin accident numbers for Cirrus vs Bonanza (the more directly comparable bird is the F33A) and it's amazing. I saw about four or five for Cirrus, vs. 1 for the F33, even though the F33 has about twenty time the number of SR-22's in the air. The intent to make the SR-22 more spin resistant does not seem to have been successful. This may prove true, I don't know. But it seems to me it might also have to do with the relative newness of the SR-22 and pilots exploring the envelope of their new bird more aggressively, vs. more time in the F33A spent high-speed cruisin'. You've read the accident reports; does this seem plausible? Regards, Sydney |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|