Cirrus... is it time for certification review?

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.

Different aircraft designs may recover differently.
ie... a long wing aircraft may require use of ailerons.

Ok, fair enough. But if you practice in an aircraft whose technique is
sufficiently similar to that of the target aircraft, you should be fine.

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.

Recently, Jose posted:

Different aircraft designs may recover differently.
ie... a long wing aircraft may require use of ailerons.

Ok, fair enough. But if you practice in an aircraft whose technique
is sufficiently similar to that of the target aircraft, you should be
fine.

But, how practical is this? Should one practice spin recovery in an SR20
so that you can feel comfortable in an SR22? ;-)

I can tell you there is little similarity between how the planes I've
flown stall or spin, though they are all basic SEL.

Neil

Neil Gould schrieb:

I can tell you there is little similarity between how the planes I've
flown stall or spin, though they are all basic SEL.

But all respond to the same technique of spin *recovery*, otherwise they
would not have been certified. (Only true for newer airplanes, obviously.)

Stefan

Different aircraft designs may recover differently.
ie... a long wing aircraft may require use of ailerons.

Ok, fair enough. But if you practice in an aircraft whose technique is
sufficiently similar to that of the target aircraft, you should be fine.

I really don't know, but believe that you are correct.

Peter

Morgans wrote:
"Peter Duniho" wrote

A quick NTSB database search shows in the last six months 4 accidents (2
fatal) involving a Cirrus SR20, and 52 (5 fatal) involving a Cessna 172. The
SR22 was involved in 7 accidents (2 fatal), while the Cessna 182 was involved
in 36 (6 fatal).

Clue - Look at fleet size, then adjust for that, and come back with some more
meaningful statistics.

How many bazillion C172's are there out there, vs. Cirrus?

One thing these figures seem to say is that 50% of SR20 accidents are
fatal, but only 10% of 172 accidents are. It is only a bit better if
you compare both Cirrus and Cessna types. The parachute should make
Cirrus accidents more survivable, not less.


John Halpenny

On 31 Oct 2006 17:28:21 -0800, "John Halpenny"
wrote in .com:

One thing these figures seem to say is that 50% of SR20 accidents are
fatal, but only 10% of 172 accidents are. It is only a bit better if
you compare both Cirrus and Cessna types. The parachute should make
Cirrus accidents more survivable, not less.

What's the SR20's stall speed compared to the C-172? The kinetic
energy expended in a mishap increases exponentially with the square of
the velocity.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:32:26 GMT, Jose wrote:

... 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".

Yes, bad choice of words on my part. Better would be, maximizes chance of
survival in a wider variety of emergencies.

Certainly there are places you *don't* want to set down on, when you're lacking
control under a parachute. But if it were a choice between landing on a tank
farm under canopy or riding a plane down with a wing missing, I think I'd take
the tank farm.

I cannot think of a *single* case where I wouldn't want the OPTION of activating
an airframe parachute. And that's the point....it's better to have it and not
need it, than to need it and not have it.

I can think of reasons I'd take other actions in particular situations. And
certainly understand that carrying such a chute has performance disadvantages.
I haven't opted for one, but I don't fault folks who decide otherwise.

Ron Wanttaja

"John Halpenny" wrote in message
oups.com...
One thing these figures seem to say is that 50% of SR20 accidents are
fatal, but only 10% of 172 accidents are.

As I pointed out previously, there aren't enough SR20 accidents (or even
SR20 and SR22 combined) to make any valid statistical conclusions. The
statistical error on the sample size exceeds the number of samples.

Pete

Jose,

From googling this group, Ilan Reich, the accident pilot, was quoted
with a detailed account here. That contained the key sentence "On the
descent, I steered the plane clear of a fuel tank farm, and
crash-landed into the water near Haverstraw, NY.". It goes on to
describe in detail how he used throttle bursts to stear clear. The
"lucky oversight" was/may have been that he left the engine running
during chute activation, which is contrary to the recommended
procedure.

You were involved in that thread, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)