Another SR22

So in theory if all GA craft were equipped with CAPS and pilots were
trained in their effective use, they might cut the number of fatalities
in
GA accidents by roughly half.

Maybe. But it costs weight and money. This means that, for the same
flight, the plane carries less gas, and this is the leading cause of
crashes. One could fly with more fuel stops, this increases the number
of landings and takeoffs (and low altitude flight). Since there's less
money, the airplane might be less well equipped, and the pilot might be
less well trained. This increases the risk too.

Everything comes from somewhere.

Jose
--
A lot of excellent points. Like many of the safety features on cars, I
suspect that it would be essentially a wash in terms of safety--at a
substantial increase in cost.

Peter

Jim Logajan wrote:

So in theory if all GA craft were equipped with CAPS and pilots were
trained in their effective use, they might cut the number of fatalities in
GA accidents by roughly half.

Or at a far lesser cost (and viable since CAPS may not be retrofit to
all aircraft) is that pilots quit screwing up in a manner that kills
them and others onboard.

Ron Lee

Recently, Thomas Borchert posted:

Larry,

But if the aircraft is below 1,000', the CAPS system is probably not
an option.


IF you are in a fully developed spin (1 full turn, as certification
requires and the handbook says), traditional spin recovery isn't an
option either at 1000 feet.

Why not? Are you implying that 1 full turn spin loses too much altitude,
and if so, based on what? Some planes spin pretty flat, while others are
pretty nose-down, which type is the SR22?

Neil

Neil,

Why not?


Because you won't make a recovery from a fully developed spin in less
than 920 feet with a plane of the approximate weight and size of the
Cirrus, say a Bo. Remember, you have done one complete turn in a fully
developed spin. Then you start counting when you apply rudder in the
opposite direction and push the yoke (or whatever conventional recovery
is to you). From that point to a positive climb rate, there's no way
you'll lose less than 920 feet of altitude. And certification doesn't
even require you to.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Neil,

Why not?


Because you won't make a recovery from a fully developed spin in less
than 920 feet with a plane of the approximate weight and size of the
Cirrus, say a Bo. Remember, you have done one complete turn in a fully
developed spin. Then you start counting when you apply rudder in the
opposite direction and push the yoke (or whatever conventional recovery
is to you). From that point to a positive climb rate, there's no way
you'll lose less than 920 feet of altitude. And certification doesn't
even require you to.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I did a little adding machine calculation,
and you appear to be correct. :-(

Obviously a situation to be avoided.

Peter

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Larry,

But if the aircraft is below 1,000', the CAPS system is probably not
an option.


IF you are in a fully developed spin (1 full turn, as certification
requires and the handbook says), traditional spin recovery isn't an
option either at 1000 feet. There is a limit to altitude loss during
recovery to meet certification. The chute obviously qualifies.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I presume that we are still just talking about fast and slick aircraft;
because the Cessna 150M and Cessna 152 can both be spun a full turn,
recovered and flown away losing half that altitude. However, the point is
essentially moot, since no pilot who was that proficient in the recovery
would allow it to happen.

Peter