Another Cirrus 'chute deployment

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
..

A) It has been spun.

When, and by whom? Show me the data.


B) It's being spun again for certification overseas.

Fine for you to say that, but again why should I believe you instead of
Cirrus?


But don't let facts get in the way of your usual anti Cirrus diatribe.

Who says I am anti-Cirrus? The Cirrus manual says the airplane cannot
recover from a spin except by deploying CAPS. Is Cirrus anti-Cirrus?

"C J Campbell" writes:

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
.

A) It has been spun.

When, and by whom? Show me the data.

It's been posted here before. Factory test pilots.

B) It's being spun again for certification overseas.

Fine for you to say that, but again why should I believe you instead of
Cirrus?

Er... OK, well, it is being done, sorry it doesn't fit your agenda though.

Hey, have the rest of this thread, you're on a crusade and nothing will
convince you otherwise.

Well, at least you dropped that stupid argument about the airframe
lifetime limitation.

-jav

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" writes:

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
.

A) It has been spun.

When, and by whom? Show me the data.

It's been posted here before. Factory test pilots.

Oh, very well. I guess the manual and the pilot who used the CAPS to save
his life were wrong. That makes Cirrus and the pilot anti-Cirrus, too, which
I think puts me in pretty good company.

If the data had really been posted here before you would have been able to
come up with it.

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...

Er... OK, well, it is being done, sorry it doesn't fit your agenda though.

Hey, have the rest of this thread, you're on a crusade and nothing will
convince you otherwise.


My only crusade is to get people to follow the manufacturer's
recommendations. My agenda is to take over the world by three o'clock this
afternoon, so I better get busy.

Well, at least you dropped that stupid argument about the airframe
lifetime limitation.

I dropped the argument when Cirrus got its extension, which is when I said I
would drop it.

Howdy!

In article ,
C J Campbell wrote:

[snip]

Who says I am anti-Cirrus? The Cirrus manual says the airplane cannot
recover from a spin except by deploying CAPS. Is Cirrus anti-Cirrus?

The following was quoted elsewhere in the thread:

(Cirrus Airplane Parachute System - CAPS) The minimum demonstrated
altitude loss for a CAPS deployment from a one-turn spin is 920
feet. Activation at higher altitudes provides enhanced safety
margins for parachute recoveries. Do not waste time and altitude
trying to recover from a spiral/spin before activating CAPS.

This does not say "don't even thing of trying". It notes the need for
prompt action at lower altitudes. If one is two miles up, one can
take a moment to try to recover and still have room to deploy.

Pray cite exactly where, in the Cirrus manual, it says that a spin
is irrecoverable without using CAPS? Until you can back up your
peculiar claim, you are trying to blow smoke up our posterior
orifices, and that dog don't hunt.

yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...
Howdy!

In article ,
C J Campbell wrote:

[snip]

Who says I am anti-Cirrus? The Cirrus manual says the airplane cannot
recover from a spin except by deploying CAPS. Is Cirrus anti-Cirrus?

The following was quoted elsewhere in the thread:

(Cirrus Airplane Parachute System - CAPS) The minimum demonstrated
altitude loss for a CAPS deployment from a one-turn spin is 920
feet. Activation at higher altitudes provides enhanced safety
margins for parachute recoveries. Do not waste time and altitude
trying to recover from a spiral/spin before activating CAPS.

This does not say "don't even thing of trying". It notes the need for
prompt action at lower altitudes. If one is two miles up, one can
take a moment to try to recover and still have room to deploy.

Pray cite exactly where, in the Cirrus manual, it says that a spin
is irrecoverable without using CAPS? Until you can back up your
peculiar claim, you are trying to blow smoke up our posterior
orifices, and that dog don't hunt.


I would never think of blowing smoke up your particular orifice, Michael.

The following was quoted elsewhere on the thread:

"Spins
The SR22 is not approved for spins, and has not been tested or certified
for spin recovery characteristics. The only approved and demonstrated method
of spin recovery is activation of the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (See
CAPS Deployment, this section). Because of this, if the aircraft “departs
controlled flight,” the CAPS must be deployed."

Now, Mr. Ferguson is the only person who has been kind enough to point out
that this may be outdated (though not without being rather abusive about
it), but it is still on Cirrus' web site and it remains the best official
information that I have.

If you clowns want to argue that the pilot in this case should not have
followed the instructions in his flight manual then I guess I really don't
know what to say, other than that I think you are idiots. I would be happy
to go up with anyone in his Cirrus and we can see if it will recover from a
spin without CAPS.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
"Spins
The SR22 is not approved for spins, and has not been tested or
certified
for spin recovery characteristics. The only approved and demonstrated
method
of spin recovery is activation of the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System
(See
CAPS Deployment, this section). Because of this, if the aircraft "departs
controlled flight," the CAPS must be deployed."

I figure that's like saying "The maximum demonstrated crosswind is 17 knots.
Because if this, you must not land in crosswinds of greater than 17 knots".

Ok, there's the "must not" bit and the "approved bit" but saying "Don't do
it"
is not the same as saying it can't be done.

There's been a big debate about the spin characteristics of my plane,
the Scottish Aviation Bulldog. It can get into a mode where it is very
difficult to recover using "normal" or "recommended" techniques. It
was found by one of the former British aerobatic champions that
giving a blip of throttle made the plane recover from this type of spin
pretty much immediately. A large outcry followed saying this wasn't
approved technique and non-standard recoveries should not be
attempted, etc. The RAF "thou shalt" if the plane got into this mode
of spin was to jetison the canopy and jump out.

Paul

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
"Spins
The SR22 is not approved for spins, and has not been tested or
certified
for spin recovery characteristics. The only approved and demonstrated
method
of spin recovery is activation of the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System
(See
CAPS Deployment, this section). Because of this, if the aircraft "departs
controlled flight," the CAPS must be deployed."

OK, well, from the JAA certification testing:

Results. The aircraft recovered within one turn in all cases examined.
Recovery controls were to reduce power, neutralize ailerons, apply
full rudder opposite to spin, and to apply immediate full forward
(nose down) pitch control. Altitude loss from spin entry to recovery
ranged from 1,200 to 1,800 feet. Detail results can be found in the
above referenced reports.

The "above referenced report" is a largish pdf file you can download
from, among other places, the COPA website.

-jav

C,

Who says I am anti-Cirrus?

ROFL.

The Cirrus manual says the airplane cannot
recover from a spin except by deploying CAPS.


Again: It does in NO WAY say that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)