Cirrus... is it time for certification review?

Actually both the Mooney and Bo are far easier to slow down even with
the tendency to float by the Mooney and they have roughly 30% less
wing loading than the SR-22.

Having owned both, I disagree. The Cirrus was easier to slow down than
my 'C' model Mooney. The only reason my 'M' model Mooney is easier to
slow down than the SR-22 is due to the speed brakes.
---
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

--
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:57:50 -0500, "Happy Dog"
wrote:

"Jose"
Which would be redefining "circuits". So the flights don't "all involve
an equal number of takeoffs and landings".

How so? Is there an accumulation of aircraft in the sky (or on the
ground) when one does circuits? When I do them, the number of takeoffs
does in fact equal the number of landings. I just do more of them.

But every takeoff and landing isn't a separate flight.

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.



m


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

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

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.

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.

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

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

"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
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

Jose,

You lose the option of standard spin recovery in exchange
for the chute.


Here we go again. You lose certification of recovery from spins by
"standard" methods.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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.