Parachute fails to save SR-22

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:42:44 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
et::


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

Irrelevant, IMHO, as to the subject of this thread. If the pilot is too
proud to pull it, the safety feature of the parachute means nothing. Just
like seatbelts. If you don't use them, they don't have a chance of
working.


But if you don't use them they cannot fail. It is the same with the
parachute.


Right. And it is my understanding, that the SR-22's parachute system
was installed solely to provide a means of spin recovery that was
otherwise unavailable in this aircraft.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Right. And it is my understanding, that the SR-22's parachute system
was installed solely to provide a means of spin recovery that was
otherwise unavailable in this aircraft.

Not true in a couple of senses. One of the founders of Cirrus Design was
lucky enough to survive a mid-air collision. That, and providing another
"out" for the pilot when all else fails were the primary impetus behind
making the chute standard equipment. The Cirrus is supposedly recoverable
in a spin, with one change from the usual procedu the yoke is supposed to
be moved briskly forward to the stop. For JAA certification Cirrus had to
do spin testing.

I have been away from the newsgroups for probably a year. Coming back,
there seems to be a remarkable amount of anti-Cirrus sentiment being voiced
here. I guess, reading this thread, I would have to attribute a lot of it
to envy. Certainly there seems to be a lot of knee-jerk unsubstantiated
criticism.

--Galvin

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:14:09 -0600, "John W. Galvin"
wrote in
::

The Cirrus is supposedly recoverable in a spin, with one change
from the usual procedu the yoke is supposed to be
moved briskly forward to the stop.

That's interesting. First I've heard of it. What is the source of
that information?

I presume that spin recovery method is not mentioned in the POH. I
can imagine situations where it might be preferable to 'chute
deployment if it was truly a certifiable spin recovery option.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:14:09 -0600, "John W. Galvin"
wrote in
::

The Cirrus is supposedly recoverable in a spin, with one change
from the usual procedu the yoke is supposed to be
moved briskly forward to the stop.

That's interesting. First I've heard of it. What is the source of
that information?

I presume that spin recovery method is not mentioned in the POH. I
can imagine situations where it might be preferable to 'chute
deployment if it was truly a certifiable spin recovery option.



When we were looking at possibly buying a Cirrus (last year I believe) I
contacted one of their reps about spin recoveries and was told that they
were never tested but could 'possibly' recover normally from a spin :-)

John,

I
contacted one of their reps about spin recoveries and was told that they
were never tested but could 'possibly' recover normally from a spin


Well, then either you were told wrong or misunderstood. The accepted and
certificated method of spin recovery is pulling the chute.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote

I contacted one of their reps about spin recoveries and was
told that they were never tested but could 'possibly' recover
normally from a spin


Well, then either you were told wrong or misunderstood. The accepted
and certificated method of spin recovery is pulling the chute.

Does having an accepted and certificated method prevent it from POSSIBLY
recovering using a normal spin recovery method? The rep simply stated
that they didn't know since it had never been tested using the normal
spin recovery technique.

Bob Moore

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
Thomas Borchert wrote

I contacted one of their reps about spin recoveries and was
told that they were never tested but could 'possibly' recover
normally from a spin


Well, then either you were told wrong or misunderstood. The accepted
and certificated method of spin recovery is pulling the chute.

Does having an accepted and certificated method prevent it from POSSIBLY
recovering using a normal spin recovery method? The rep simply stated
that they didn't know since it had never been tested using the normal
spin recovery technique.

Bob Moore

I have a hard time believing that they didn't do spin testing. Perhaps they
just don't want to talk about it. On the other hand, maybe they didn't
spin test, but it seems like one of those things that every manufacturer
would do on each of its models. The result might be "Spins and recovers
nicely" or "Don't spin it.", but if I was laying out a few hundred thousand
dollars, I'd like to have a better answer than "If it happens, you can pull
the red handle, or you can be a test pilot."

I thought they (Cirrus) was released from the spin recovery part of
certification *because* they had a chute.

mike regish

"John E. Carty" wrote in message
. com...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:14:09 -0600, "John W. Galvin"
wrote in
::

The Cirrus is supposedly recoverable in a spin, with one change
from the usual procedu the yoke is supposed to be
moved briskly forward to the stop.

That's interesting. First I've heard of it. What is the source of
that information?

I presume that spin recovery method is not mentioned in the POH. I
can imagine situations where it might be preferable to 'chute
deployment if it was truly a certifiable spin recovery option.



When we were looking at possibly buying a Cirrus (last year I believe) I
contacted one of their reps about spin recoveries and was told that they
were never tested but could 'possibly' recover normally from a spin :-)

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 15:14:23 -0500, "mike regish"
wrote:

I thought they (Cirrus) was released from the spin recovery part of
certification *because* they had a chute.

Yup.

Dave Blevins

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:14:09 -0600, "John W. Galvin"
wrote in
::

The Cirrus is supposedly recoverable in a spin, with one change
from the usual procedu the yoke is supposed to be
moved briskly forward to the stop.

That's interesting. First I've heard of it. What is the source of
that information?

I presume that spin recovery method is not mentioned in the POH. I
can imagine situations where it might be preferable to 'chute
deployment if it was truly a certifiable spin recovery option.

Your e-mail address looked valid. I don't want to know how much spam you
must receive. I sent you a copy of the JAA PDF. It documents the method
mentioned.

The POH for the SR22 had spin recovery documented, but that text was removed
in later revisions in favor of the CAPS as only method of spin recovery. My
guess would be that the lawyers made that decision.

--Galvin