Cirrus... is it time for certification review?

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:37:01 -0500, "Happy Dog"
wrote:

"Jose" wrote in message
To me and I believe the FAA defines a flight as the time between take
off and landing, two circuits with touch and goes equals two flights
although you only make the one entry in the log book.

As far as the FAA is concerned, you can pick just about any takeoff and
any (subsequent) landing and call it a flight.

(First person comments not directed at the above poster.)

Or not. Absent culpability, nobody cares. The original poster made some
claim to the effect that hours on Cessnas are similar to hours on Cirruses
when it comes to comparing accident stats. They aren't. If it was cheaper
to own a Cirrus than anything else, almost anyone would own one. I put a

This might be true in most cases, but not all. One couple was
interested in purchasing an F33 Bo. They flew my Deb and after doing
stalls and finding out how slipery it is, purchased a newer Piper
Archer for more money. They said they decided they wanted to stick
with something simple. Although it has fixed gear and no prop control
the SR-22 is definately not a simple airplane to fly.

bunch of expensive avionics and a parachute, in an ultralight mostly because
I could afford to. With only a couple adorable exceptions, fellow pilots
all whined about my choices. Who cares?

Did you buy a new Cirrus instead of an old pressurized twin? Did you get
PPL on the way up and then lose interest and get a jet and a crew?

Nobody else's business. When there's a consensus among filthy rich hobby
pilots, I'll be grateful.

moo


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

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

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.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 05:53:23 -0500, Cubdriver usenet AT danford.net wrote:

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:48:19 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

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 second part ought to be true, but not the first. The Cirrus should
have *more* accidents, because isn't every deployment an accident? I
mean, aren't all Cirrus PLFs (I've been waiting since Fort Bragg to
use that acronym!) going to damage the airplane?

Some or many of those accidents would have been avoided without the
parachute, since the pilot would make an emergency landing, hopefully
without damage to the airplane.

Perhaps. I am reminded of Chuck Yeager's biography, where he said something
along the lines of "With F-86 engine failures, I did a deadstick landing only if
I was feeling really sharp that day."

None of use have Yeager's skills, though the aircraft we fly aren't nearly as
challenging. But the fact is, many of us *aren't* sharp enough...or lucky
enough...to pull off emergency landings without damage. Some of us kill
ourselves while attempting it.

We have gotten sucked into the "spin certification" vortex again, and lose sight
of the fact that the parachute is a solution to most airborne emergencies. Not
the *best* solution... for myself, I'd rather try land deadstick if the occasion
arises...but it is a lowest common denominator.

Rather than requiring a multitude of skill sets that will fade over time...

- "Trim for best glide speed, start looking for an open field"
- "Throttle back, stick forward, rudder against the spin"
- "Use the doors to turn and the trim to control pitch"
- "Turn the landing light on; if you don't like what you see, turn it off")

.... the parachute system allows the pilot the option of taking ONE action that
will ensure survival in a wide variety of emergencies. And a parachute is
practically the only viable option in a number of circumstances. If the
propeller sheds a blade and the engine shakes itself off the front of the
airplane, no amount of stick-and-rudder skills will help.

Cubdriver's right...a parachute system will turn a potential incident (not
meeting the NTSB Part 830 criteria) into an actual accident. But I'd let the
insurance companies fight that one.

Ron Wanttaja

... the parachute system allows the pilot the option of taking ONE action that
will ensure survival in a wide variety of emergencies.

Well, not so fast. The ones that stick out in my mind (of course not a
statistical sample by any means!) involved parachuting into a fuel tank
farm (averted only because the pilot accidentally left the engine
running) and parachuting into water (losing the cushioning ability of
the landing gear). Once you pull the handle, you have little or no
control over the outcome.

All in all, I would tend to doubt the claim that it "ensures survival in
a wide variety of emergencies".

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.

Jose,

(averted only because the pilot accidentally left the engine
running)


That should read "intentionally".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

(averted only because the pilot accidentally left the engine
running)
That should read "intentionally".

I'll stand corrected, but my recollection is that it was a lucky oversight.

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.