![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Michael" wrote in message om... "C J Campbell" wrote Therefore, the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin when below 900' AGL. Many other aircraft can. Name one aircraft that can cruise better than 170 kts, carry four people, and can recover from a spin at 900 AGL. The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL if all goes well, and I honestly feel that that is a great thing, but not the same as "recovering" from the spin. The airplane will be bent, probably off the field (possibly in a schoolyard, or the middle of an interstate, or...) and there may well be injuries, inside and outside the plane. Vaughn Michael |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Vaughn Simon" wrote in message ... "Michael" wrote in message om... "C J Campbell" wrote Therefore, the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin when below 900' AGL. Many other aircraft can. Name one aircraft that can cruise better than 170 kts, carry four people, and can recover from a spin at 900 AGL. The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs more than 900 feet to deploy? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
... The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs more than 900 feet to deploy? They have the same hope any occupant of any similar aircraft has of surviving a spin from 900' AGL. The parachute is an irrelevant red herring in this particular example. Pete |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:58:11 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs more than 900 feet to deploy? Ya, that's the point I brought up in another subthread here, which went unanswered. Maybe you can help. If the deployment requires 920, does that mean after 920 you can safely touchdown or does that mean it requires 920 + however long it takes to slow your velocity to proper touchdown velocity? I ask because, I don't think a chute opening 10 AGL is going to help much. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Greg Copeland" wrote in message news ![]() On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:58:11 -0700, C J Campbell wrote: "Vaughn Simon" wrote in message The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs more than 900 feet to deploy? Ya, that's the point I brought up in another subthread here, which went unanswered. Maybe you can help. If the deployment requires 920, does that mean after 920 you can safely touchdown or does that mean it requires 920 + however long it takes to slow your velocity to proper touchdown velocity? I ask because, I don't think a chute opening 10 AGL is going to help much. I believe the POH says that is the altitude necessary to safely touch down. Whether it could be of any help before that I don't know. Even partially opened the parachute is going to add some drag, but what happens is that the parachute is pulled out by a rocket. Instead of opening instantly (which would destroy the chute) a Teflon coated ring slides down the shroud lines to allow the chute to open in a controlled manner. The airplane continues moving forward during all this process. Once the chute is opened, the airplane swings down under the canopy. So dropping that last few feet just as the parachute opens the airplane's rate of descent might not be slowed at all. All of that assumes that the airplane is in normal forward flight. The Cirrus spins in a flat attitude and it might not have all that much forward motion. I guess the actual altitude needed would vary some depending on just what the airplane is doing at the time the CAPS system is deployed. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "Vaughn Simon" wrote in message ... "Michael" wrote in message om... "C J Campbell" wrote Therefore, the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin when below 900' AGL. Many other aircraft can. Name one aircraft that can cruise better than 170 kts, carry four people, and can recover from a spin at 900 AGL. The occupants of a Cirrus can hope to "survive" a spin from 900 AGL How so, if the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin and the parachute needs more than 900 feet to deploy? Not to mention reaction time which would add hundreds of feet to the equation. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:39:20 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:
Not to mention reaction time which would add hundreds of feet to the equation. And that assumes you didn't waste time trying to recover in the first place. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
So now we come back to some of the points I made early on in this thread...
One of the problems is getting the pilot to absolutely ignore both human nature and his training and immediately deploy the BRS with no attempt at recovery from the spin. Because if the pilot doesn't follow this procedure, no questions asked, the delay resulting from going through a recovery process and the associated thought processes may well put the pilot below the effective altitude of the BRS. You're working against both existing training and instincts, and Cirrus-specific training that simply tells a pilot about the specific characteristics of the airplane is useless. The training needs to absolutely pound these differences into the pilot's head. And until that type of training is done the Cirrus will continue to have a less-than-stellar accident record... "Greg Copeland" wrote in message news ![]() On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 03:39:20 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote: Not to mention reaction time which would add hundreds of feet to the equation. And that assumes you didn't waste time trying to recover in the first place. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bill Denton" wrote in message ... So now we come back to some of the points I made early on in this thread... One of the problems is getting the pilot to absolutely ignore both human nature and his training and immediately deploy the BRS with no attempt at recovery from the spin. snip...And until that type of training is done the Cirrus will continue to have a less-than-stellar accident record... And to come back to a point I made earlier in the thread, the result of pulling the BRS *is* an accident. You will end up with bent metal and possibly injuries every time you deploy the rescue system, and this reality will be reflected in the Cirrus's insurance rates. Hopefully, the Cirrus will some day have a low fatality rate, but I doubt if it will ever be known for a low accident rate. Vaughn |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bill Denton" wrote in message ... So now we come back to some of the points I made early on in this thread... One of the problems is getting the pilot to absolutely ignore both human nature and his training and immediately deploy the BRS with no attempt at recovery from the spin. Because if the pilot doesn't follow this procedure, no questions asked, the delay resulting from going through a recovery process and the associated thought processes may well put the pilot below the effective altitude of the BRS. You're working against both existing training and instincts, and Cirrus-specific training that simply tells a pilot about the specific characteristics of the airplane is useless. The training needs to absolutely pound these differences into the pilot's head. And until that type of training is done the Cirrus will continue to have a less-than-stellar accident record... Can you imagine what a pilot that flies a Cirrus and other planes would do in a crisis situation. Two totally different emergency procedures would vie for top priority. Scary. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
New Cirrus SR22 Lead Time | Lenny Sawyer | Owning | 4 | March 6th 04 09:22 AM |
Fractional Ownership - Cirrus SR22 | Rich Raine | Owning | 3 | December 24th 03 05:36 AM |
New Cessna panel | C J Campbell | Owning | 48 | October 24th 03 04:43 PM |