Another Cirrus 'chute deployment

"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

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/

"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.

"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.

"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.

we had cirrus open house come to salt lake city and give some local CFI's a
test ride - talked to the test pilots and it was the same. You get in a
spin you pull the chute. Aircraft is not certified for spins (something
about aft CG)

I don't see the big deal - follow the POH. My question on the accident is
what was a pilot doing up there that high above 12,500 did he have oxygen?
Also he was close on the operation limits and if he was heavy (overloaded)
he could have easily gone in a stall/spin including heavy turbulence..if I
got in a spin yeah I *might* try and get out of the spin but I wouldn't
waste time pulling that chute.

in the end we'll just wait and see on the NTSB report (someone post it when
it shows up)

Matthew

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:07:51 GMT, "Matthew Chidester"
wrote:

My question on the accident is
what was a pilot doing up there that high above 12,500 did he have oxygen?
Also he was close on the operation limits and if he was heavy (overloaded)
he could have easily gone in a stall/spin including heavy turbulence.

The 310hp SR-22 17,500 foot ceiling is a certified ceiling not a
service ceiling. It is actually 500 feet less than the 200hp SR-20
ceiling, so I doubt that the problems with the plane were caused by
being close to it climb limit. I don't know whether that plane had
oxygen, but it is a factory option.

The 310hp SR-22 17,500 foot ceiling is a certified ceiling not a
service ceiling. It is actually 500 feet less than the 200hp SR-20
ceiling, so I doubt that the problems with the plane were caused by
being close to it climb limit. I don't know whether that plane had
oxygen, but it is a factory option.

huh I didn't know they had an option on oxygen - that's a LONG way down -
interesting, well like I said should be an interesting NTSB report thanks
for the info

If you have more recent information, my apologies.

However, I still feel that this criticism of the pilot in this case, who was
merely following the instructions in his manual, is entirely unjustified. If
it makes me anti-Cirrus to quote Cirrus, then I suppose Cirrus is
anti-Cirrus, too. I note further down that some people think I may be too
pro- Cirrus.

The bottom line is that I really don't give a hoot what anyone thinks -- I
am going to use the best and most recent information that I have. If
somebody like you comes up with more recent information, I will use that, no
matter what I think of you personally. However, given that you began with a
wholly unwarranted personal attack, I will have to treat your assertions
with a certain amount of skepticism until I can verify them with Cirrus
personally.

Look - no personal attack, I'm just tired of inaccurate statements,
intended or not. Let's skip the BS with the AFM and focus on what
matters. My view on this entire matter can be summed up thusly: it's
just as incorrect to state that the SR series *won't* recover from
spins (whether they're of the incipient or fully developed variety) as
it is to say that they *will.* I've never claimed that Cirrus
certified the aircraft to spin, nor have I claimed the company has
demonstrated (to the FAA's satisfaction, anyway) that normal spin
recovery inputs will be effective in the event of inadvertent spin
entry. This is an exercise in using precision in communication. We
should all agree that only correct statement is as follows: activation
of CAPS is the only demonstrated and certified method of recovering
from a spin.

And to answer your other question: Yes... one of Cirrus' product
managers, visiting from Duluth, upon my employer's activation of our
Cirrus Standardized Training Center designation, verified to me
personally -- in front of a crowd of flight instructors -- during one
our initial meetings on the Cirrus product line, that the airplane has
been spun on many occasions during testing and certification, with as
many as three turns prior to recovery. (Hot topic among us as a group
that day... !) That 'fact' will never be anything more than anecdotal
information in the face of the AFM's recommendations. It is not an
implicit endorsement of the airplane's spin recovery characteristics.
It is not an implicit recommendation to disregard the AFM's admonition
that CAPS deployment is the only approved method of spin recovery as
demonstrated during certification. If you think you're going to call
Cirrus on the phone and get someone to tell you the airplane was
successfully spun during flight testing, you've got another think
coming. There's no way in hell they'll say that unless they have a
damn good reason to do so. It's not hard to understand or believe
that many guidelines, recommendations, and procedures listed in the
AFM are driven at least in part by marketing and legal concerns,
rather than engineering or flight test conclusions. A logical person
should be able to internalize this when considering issues such as
these. John Deakin has done much excellent work at AVWeb.com
debunking many inaccurate "official" publications that pilots treat as
gospel, such as engine manufacturer's operating guidelines and even
Pilot Operating Handbook procedures. This is nothing new.

My main contention is with your statement that the SR-22 and SR-20
"won't" recover from a spin. That is an incorrect, or inaccurate if
you prefer, statement based on the facts. It's just as bad as saying
"Sure, they'll recover from spins!" If you stop making that
statement, I'll be a happy camper. You can criticize Cirrus for
choosing an alternative method of compliance during certification of
the SR, but frankly no flight instructor I know who works in the
Cirrus (if standardized by Cirrus, they're called 'CSIs') really cares
about the spin/BRS issue at all. The Cirrus handles wonderfully at
MCA - I can rack in 30 degrees of bank with the stall warning horn
ringing incessantly. No problem, just light buffet. From that 30
degree bank turn at MCA I can slam immediate full aileron to a turn in
the opposite direction, also at 30 degrees of bank *with no rudder
application at all to coordinate the roll* and the airplane refuses to
wobble over the edge and stall in uncoordinated fashion. Even full
power stalls, which occur at very high deck angles, can be effected
leaving one's feet on the floor -- and the stall is clean and
predictable throughout, with only a very slight yawing moment during
the break. You'd really have to work hard to force the airplane into
an inadvertent spin. But "they" keep perfecting the better idiot with
revolting persistence, so that will never be ruled out.

In short, the spin issue is a red herring if you're looking for things
to gripe about with this airplane. The ironic thing is, with 150 or
so hours in 20s and 22s, I'm not a big fan from an ownership
perspective - I see some glaring faults that need to be corrected to
make the current iteration of the 20/22 a truly safe and redundant
electric airplane - but none of my concerns involve spin resistance or
recovery. The cuffed airfoil (which is actually a decades-old
design!) takes care of that nicely.

Put it this way. I'll fly over areas of widespread LIFR in my Twin
Comanche and taken anything/everything at minimums, no sweat. In the
Cirrus, I don't like flying with ceilings less than 1000 feet or 3
miles of visibility. And I teach/fly instruments, often in IMC,
nearly every day. That should tell you something.

-Ryan
ATP/CFII (airplanes and helicopters)
.... and Cirrus Standardized Instructor

"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message
om...



My main contention is with your statement that the SR-22 and SR-20
"won't" recover from a spin. That is an incorrect, or inaccurate if
you prefer, statement based on the facts. It's just as bad as saying
"Sure, they'll recover from spins!" If you stop making that
statement, I'll be a happy camper. You can criticize Cirrus for
choosing an alternative method of compliance during certification of
the SR, but frankly no flight instructor I know who works in the
Cirrus (if standardized by Cirrus, they're called 'CSIs') really cares
about the spin/BRS issue at all.

As I don't. My original response was to a question about why the pilot had
not tried some form of spin recovery other than CAPS deployment. My response
was that the Cirrus will not recover from a spin. I will grant that the
response may have been incomplete, but I thought that CAPS recovery was
understood. I also thought that saying that the Cirrus will not spin would
be understood in the context of the aircraft manual. Instead, I get attacked
by a bunch of zealots, including you, who tell me that my statement is BS,
ignorant, and some kind of attack on Cirrus, as if verbal abuse and personal
defamation would make me like Cirrus more.

Quite honestly, I still like Cirrus the plane, but from what I have seen
here, I can't say much for the pilots.