Cirrus... is it time for certification review?

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:18:38 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
It does seem like the parachute, an occasional a celebrity, amd the
inconsistancy of small samples have simply increased the hype factor.

I'm sure that is the case. Then again, if a chute equipped airplane has
the same accident rate as a traditional design, I think one must question
the value of having the chute and its associated cost and weight.

Given that the types of accidents that the parachute is intended to address
are exceedingly rare even in non-equipped airplanes, I would find it VERY
surprising if the overall accident rate was noticeably affected by the
presence of the parachute.

I think that the type of event the parachute is intended for would likely be an
accident in a non-chute-equipped airplane, as well. Hence the accident rate
*shouldn't* be different... but there hopefully would be an advantage in the
fatality rate.

The fact is that the pilot of a parachute-equipped aircraft has one option more
than the pilot of one that doesn't have a chute. Whether one is willing to
trade *having* that option for increased useful load, more cabin space, or even
improved low-speed handling characteristics is just another example of the kinds
of decisions an airplane buyer must make.

I don't fault a pilot choosing to opt for an airplane with a chute, any more
than I would fault one for selecting a plane with retractable gear. It's their
money. The chute *does* work; it *can* lower the plane to the ground with less
than life-threatening injuries to the occupants. People buy it for peace of
mind, few, if any, expect they'll ever actually have to use it.

Ron Wanttaja

The fact is that the pilot of a parachute-equipped aircraft has one option more
than the pilot of one that doesn't have a chute.

All things being equal, this is the case. But in the Cirrus, all things
aren't equal. You lose the option of standard spin recovery in exchange
for the chute.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 05:13:40 GMT, Jose wrote:

The fact is that the pilot of a parachute-equipped aircraft has one option more
than the pilot of one that doesn't have a chute.

All things being equal, this is the case. But in the Cirrus, all things
aren't equal. You lose the option of standard spin recovery in exchange
for the chute.

Nope. Just not a spin recovery capability proven in certification. For all any
of us know, a standard recovery will work, especially if initiated early. If it
*doesn't* though, the pilot does have another option.

After all, nothing guarantees that a Cessna 182 will recover from a spin,
either. Yes, it's certified to do so *under particular conditions*. Depart
from those conditions... with a CG aft of the limits, with the airfoils coated
with ice...and there's a good probability that the Cessna won't recover.

The argument about spin certification assumes that Bonanzas, 182, Mooneys, etc.
regularly ENTER and RECOVER from undesired spins. Not just stalls, but *spins*.
I haven't heard that that is the case. Though a lot of those certified-spinning
airplanes are lost in stall/spin accidents.

Heck, I've done it...accidentally spun an airplane. Carrying my first passenger
after getting my Private, no less. But this was a Citabria, not a Centurion.

Ron Wanttaja

You lose the option of standard spin recovery in exchange
for the chute.
Nope. Just not a spin recovery capability proven in certification. For all any
of us know, a standard recovery will work, especially if initiated early. If it
*doesn't* though, the pilot does have another option.

Well, I suppose you also don't "lose" the option of doing the Tango.
The spin recovery was not proven in certification. If you get into a
spin, you have the option of becoming a test pilot, or of pulling the
chute. In a standard airplane, you have the option of standard spin
recovery (which has been proven to work), or becoming a test pilot.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

You lose the option of standard spin recovery in exchange
for the chute.
Nope. Just not a spin recovery capability proven in certification. For
all any
of us know, a standard recovery will work, especially if initiated
early. If it
*doesn't* though, the pilot does have another option.

Well, I suppose you also don't "lose" the option of doing the Tango.
The spin recovery was not proven in certification. If you get into a
spin, you have the option of becoming a test pilot, or of pulling the
chute. In a standard airplane, you have the option of standard spin
recovery (which has been proven to work), or becoming a test pilot.

Jose

All of these points are true, and I think that they narrowly miss a greater
point in both spin avoidance and spin recovery--at least in visual
conditions. That is that a pilot proficient is spins and spin recovery is
much more likely to correctly recognize the problem and immediately take
corrective action; which should be highly effective in any aircraft normally
operated with a PPL. My belief is that any single engine recip (I can't
think of an exception) can be recovered with only a modest loss of altitude
during the first 90 degrees of a spin entry; but that the required
proficiency requires practice and recurrent training which cannot be
conducted in type--in the case that intentional spins are prohibited.

Peter
Just my $.02

but that the required
proficiency requires practice and recurrent training which cannot be
conducted in type--in the case that intentional spins are prohibited.

Does the training have to be conducted in type for the pilot to maintain
proficiency? I suspect that spin training in a Citabria would do
wonders for a pilot who has just fallen into a spin in a Cirrus.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

but that the required
proficiency requires practice and recurrent training which cannot be
conducted in type--in the case that intentional spins are prohibited.

Does the training have to be conducted in type for the pilot to maintain
proficiency? I suspect that spin training in a Citabria would do
wonders for a pilot who has just fallen into a spin in a Cirrus.

Different aircraft designs may recover differently.
ie... a long wing aircraft may require use of ailerons. Only the
manufacturers spin testing and recommended recovery technique should be
used.

Jose wrote:
The fact is that the pilot of a parachute-equipped aircraft has one
option more than the pilot of one that doesn't have a chute.

All things being equal, this is the case. But in the Cirrus, all
things aren't equal. You lose the option of standard spin recovery in
exchange for the chute.

It is true that the options aren't equal, but the human _survival_ odds
actually favor the Cirrus than the spin-recoverable plane. Given the same
pilot in either plane, there are theoretically more spin accident scenarios
where the pilot in the Cirrus can come out alive than in the non-chute-
equipped plane. This assumes of course that spin-recoverable plane requires
a higher altitude to recover than successful BRS deployment and that the
pilot in both cases executes the correct recovery sequence in time.

Theoretically, as far as I can tell, there should be a higher probability
of wrecked Cirrus planes relative to spin-recoverable planes _but_ a lower
probability of fatalities relative to the spin-recoverable planes.

Avweb has an article on the recent Cirrus accidents in its latest "issue":

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive.../733-full.html

Here's an article that discusses the motivation for the chute and why
Cirrus considers the use of CAPS superior to spin recovery:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/chutehappens/qa/index.html

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 06:35:05 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Jose wrote:
The fact is that the pilot of a parachute-equipped aircraft has one
option more than the pilot of one that doesn't have a chute.

All things being equal, this is the case. But in the Cirrus, all
things aren't equal. You lose the option of standard spin recovery in
exchange for the chute.

It is true that the options aren't equal, but the human _survival_ odds
actually favor the Cirrus than the spin-recoverable plane. Given the same

The Cirrus is spin recoverable. As Ron said, it's just not certified
for them.

pilot in either plane, there are theoretically more spin accident scenarios
where the pilot in the Cirrus can come out alive than in the non-chute-
equipped plane. This assumes of course that spin-recoverable plane requires
a higher altitude to recover than successful BRS deployment and that the
pilot in both cases executes the correct recovery sequence in time.

Theoretically, as far as I can tell, there should be a higher probability
of wrecked Cirrus planes relative to spin-recoverable planes _but_ a lower
probability of fatalities relative to the spin-recoverable planes.

Avweb has an article on the recent Cirrus accidents in its latest "issue":

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive.../733-full.html

Here's an article that discusses the motivation for the chute and why
Cirrus considers the use of CAPS superior to spin recovery:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/chutehappens/qa/index.html
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Jim Logajan wrote:

It is true that the options aren't equal, but the human _survival_ odds
actually favor the Cirrus than the spin-recoverable plane. Given the same
pilot in either plane, there are theoretically more spin accident scenarios
where the pilot in the Cirrus can come out alive than in the non-chute-
equipped plane.

My view of Cirrus parachute deployments is that they are done not in
response to a spin but pilots getting into avoidable situations that
they elected to deploy the parachute.

Ron Lee