Another SR22

Larry,

However, if you have, for example, an engine failure at 400' on
departure, the CAPS is not an option.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

My point is, that CAPS is not an option at the times it's needed most:
below 920'.

That's not what your own quote says. It says it is not an option if you
arrive at less than 920 feet after one full turn in a spin.

So to characterize the SR22 CAPS as a safety enhancement
(for other than spin recovery, and possibly a MAC, structural failure,
loss of control, and landing in inhospitable terrain, *if* they occur
above 920') is inappropriate.

Well, the people saved by it in different circumstances would probably
beg to differ.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:18:30 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote in
:

Larry,

However, if you have, for example, an engine failure at 400' on
departure, the CAPS is not an option.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

The way I read the quote from the SR22 POH, it requires 920' to fully
deploy the CAPS. Do you have information to the contrary?

My point is, that CAPS is not an option at the times it's needed most:
below 920'.

That's not what your own quote says. It says it is not an option if you
arrive at less than 920 feet after one full turn in a spin.

So you feel that less altitude would be required for full CAPS
deployment if the aircraft hadn't archived "one full turn in a spin?"
You'll have to cite some objective information that supports that
notion before I'll change my opinion from what is written in the SR22
POH.

So to characterize the SR22 CAPS as a safety enhancement
(for other than spin recovery, and possibly a MAC, structural failure,
loss of control, and landing in inhospitable terrain, *if* they occur
above 920') is inappropriate.

Well, the people saved by it in different circumstances would probably
beg to differ.

Are you able to provide any credible information about the
circumstances to which you refer?

Larry,

The way I read the quote from the SR22 POH, it requires 920' to fully
deploy the CAPS. Do you have information to the contrary?

No, it'S just not the way I read it. I read it as saying it requires 920
feet coming out of a full spin turn. And that's what it says.

So you feel that less altitude would be required for full CAPS
deployment if the aircraft hadn't archived "one full turn in a spin?"

Would be kind of logical, wouldn't it, that there's a difference to pulling
at straight and level? But I can't prove it.

So to characterize the SR22 CAPS as a safety enhancement
(for other than spin recovery, and possibly a MAC, structural failure,
loss of control, and landing in inhospitable terrain, *if* they occur
above 920') is inappropriate.

Are you able to provide any credible information about the
circumstances to which you refer?

The NTSB records will provide with several accidents that did not include
(your list following) spin recovery, MAC, structural failure, LOC and
inhospitable terrain. That alone, though, is a pretty good list of stuff to
be saved from, don't you think?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)