Cirrus Deploys Chute Safely

"C J Campbell" wrote in message news:qd-dnQxHoKuEcc_cRVn-

2. Pilot deployed CAPS in IMC after insturments became unreliable SR22

Cirrus' manuals treat spins and steep spirals the same. In this case, the
airplane entered a steep spiral.

But that wasn't your assertion. Your assertion was that spin recovery was either
fatal or resulted in a CAPS deployment, with the implication being that spin recovery
by control inputs was not possible. Sprials are a completely different beast.


5. Low altitude stall due to evasive manouvering in the pattern. SR20

I am not sure what your point about altitude is or why you think it proves I
am wrong, but I am willing to listen to it.

Because my assertion is that no matter what the method for spin recovery would
be (in whatever aircraft), recovery from such a low altitude spin would have been
unlikely.

8. Spatial disorientation followed by a high speed impact with the ground
(unlikely therefore
to have been a spin). SR22

No, but it would have been a steep spiral, which Cirrus seems to think is
the same thing.

But that wasn't the point you claimed. You claimed that people were dying because
there was no way to recover from the spin.

9. VFR-into-IMC CFIT SR20
12. Mountainous terrain/Density Alt CFIT SR20

One of these two CFITs had the pilot reporting that he had entered a spin.
Of course, the news reports may have been incorrect.

Neither is apparent from the NTSB report... One showed the aircraft entering
pretty much flat and straight ahead, the other showed failure outclimb obstacles
at a reduced peformance (DA) condition.


I count four spins.

I don't. I count at most one spin that could have been recoverable if the aircraft
had conventional spin behavior (and it has yet been proven that the Cirrus can't be
recovered by some control inputs). Your assertion of numerous crashes as a result
of spins and/or deployments is not supported. Even by your own optimistic view
it's only 4.

I don't. I count at most one spin that could have been recoverable if
the aircraft
had conventional spin behavior (and it has yet been proven that the Cirrus
can't be
recovered by some control inputs). Your assertion of numerous crashes as
a result
of spins and/or deployments is not supported. Even by your own
optimistic view
it's only 4.



Only 4? That seems like a lot for such a small fleet to me. I am amazed at
how people seem to think that average is acceptable. A new design should be
SAFER than a new 182 other 40 year old design of similar class. Progress is
called for is it not?

btw, there are 2 in the last few months, this and canada.

Combine that with the guys that were "going out to practice stalls" and you
have 3 that I know of. I couldn't get through all your guys mishmash to see
what other one is arguable.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:41:57 GMT, "Dude" wrote:


I don't. I count at most one spin that could have been recoverable if
the aircraft
had conventional spin behavior (and it has yet been proven that the Cirrus
can't be
recovered by some control inputs). Your assertion of numerous crashes as
a result
of spins and/or deployments is not supported. Even by your own
optimistic view
it's only 4.



Only 4? That seems like a lot for such a small fleet to me. I am amazed at
how people seem to think that average is acceptable. A new design should be
SAFER than a new 182 other 40 year old design of similar class. Progress is
called for is it not?


Not necessarily. The Cirrus design is a *high performance* airplane
with "fixed feet". Pilots appear to be treating it like any other
"fixed gear" airplane which it's not.

On top of that they have the BRS and to cover an apparent and admitted
inability to recover from a spin.

So, you have, in general, pilots with a fixed gear attitude flying an
airplane with a retract attitude. It is deceptively slippery.
It is 20 knots faster than the typical Bo and is definitely not a
short field aircraft.
According to the pilots of the one on our field it is a plane you fly
on, much like the G-III or Lancair IV. They specifically say it lands
fast and is not a pane for full stall landings.

I would be very interested in how it handles accelerated stalls.

Overall in my opinion and it is just that, an opinion, the plane could
use a larger tail and rudder. Any plane that whose POH says "pull the
chute" in a spin, or steep spiral needs a bit more work.

btw, there are 2 in the last few months, this and canada.

Combine that with the guys that were "going out to practice stalls" and you
have 3 that I know of. I couldn't get through all your guys mishmash to see

Practicing stalls in high performance means that most likely, sooner
or later, it is going to drop a wing. An uncoordinated stall brings a
spin *entry*, but a real spin takes time to develop. If the pilot is
not familiar with spins and high performance he/she is most likely to
use the ailerons which will accelerate the entry.

I do not know how Cirrus handles this situation, but the new owners
out here said you do not do uncoordinated stalls in the SR-22.

That scares me a bit as sooner or later one will happen, be it in
rough air, or a mistake in practicing.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

what other one is arguable.

Roger, I am with you on your points, but I have to say that it seems the
Diamond Star (admittedly not hi performance) and Lancair 400 have managed to
create wings that are efficient and stall/spin friendly.

I think that we should expect a new design to be better in these areas due
to all our new knowledge, tools, and materials. I guess I am just to
demanding?

At any rate, you are right on about pilots not being ready for the Cirrus
planes, and I don't see the 20 being any easier to fly than the 22.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

I don't. I count at most one spin that could have been recoverable if
the aircraft
had conventional spin behavior (and it has yet been proven that the Cirrus
can't be
recovered by some control inputs). Your assertion of numerous crashes as
a result
of spins and/or deployments is not supported. Even by your own
optimistic view
it's only 4.

I plead guilty to the charge of pessimism. I think we are talking at cross
purposes here. I am going by what the manual says, which says that spins
have not been tested and the only approved method of recovery is by
deploying CAPS. I also think the number of stall/spin accidents is
excessive, given the small size of the fleet and the fact that the Cirrus is
supposed to be especially resistant to this type of accident.

I think the thing that really bothers me is the implicit criticism of the
pilot who merely followed the procedures in his manual, as well as the
religious like fervor with which some people attack anyone who dares to say
anything they perceive as negative about Cirrus, even if the information
comes from Cirrus itself.

I see no particular reason why the Cirrus should have any method of recovery
from spins other than deploying CAPS. If there is, fine, but why bother? If
the airplane is supposed to be spin and stall resistant and the pilots are
trained properly, then this type of accident should be much more rare than
it seems to be.

If the airplane is supposed to be spin and stall resistant and the pilots
are
trained properly, then this type of accident should be much more rare than
it seems to be.

The airplane is supposed to be spin resistant. I don't recall any
knowledgeable person claiming that it is stall resistant. As with most
general aviation airplanes, you can pitch it so that the angle of attack
exceeds the critical angle, and the wing will stall.

Regards,

-Mike