Another Cirrus 'chute deployment

"C J Campbell" writes:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote:
None of the Cirrus models will recover from a spin.

Oh, baloney, Chris.

If it is baloney, show me even one single instance where a Cirrus
recovered
from a spin.

sigh All right, I'll start digging. I know I've read that CD factory
pilots have recovered from spins many times: I'll find it. And BTW,
why are spin recovery procedures given in the POH?


Early manuals gave a theoretical method of spin recovery, but it has been
removed. The POH specifically says that the Cirrus has not been tested for
spin recovery, that intentional spins and recoveries are prohibited, and
that the only method approved for accidental spin recovery is deployment of
the BRS. Sounds an awful lot like "won't recover from a spin and has never
demonstrated recovery from a spin" to me.

A) It has been spun.

B) It's being spun again for certification overseas.

But don't let facts get in the way of your usual anti Cirrus diatribe.

-jav

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...

Right. It is not necessarily true that a stall will result in a spin. The
Cirrus requires considerable force to enter a spin. It can be done, as was
demonstrated, but it is not easy. I don't think it is far wrong to say that
some other planes would break up in flight if subjected to the same types of
forces.

What?!?!

Last time I checked, the Cirrus was only certified to the same limits
as everybody else's airplanes. Why should it hang together better
than everyone else's? (And if you think they designed in an extra
3g's and didn't tell anybody about it, I've got a bridge to sell you.)

And why do the spins require "considerable force"? Force on what?
The wing is stalled (or very nearly so), meaning not too much stress
on them, at least. I bet one can pitch up to, say 30 degrees above
the horizon with a bunch of nose-up trim, then let go of everything
and she'll stall right out from under you with no pilot input at all!
Once you've got that down, try giving her a big boot full of left
rudder and hammer in the throttle just as she breaks. I'd bet she'll
do a very pretty spin entry from there.... 8- (And, btw, there's
really very little stress on the airframe when you do this. Otoh, it
might be stressful for the pilot.)

C J Campbell wrote:

"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message
...

C J Campbell wrote:


You continue to say this even though the manual does not. The manual
actually prohibits attempts at normal recovery and requires immediate
deployment of the BRS.

Actually, the manual does say that - quite clearly, in fact.

Where's your Cirrus instructor kit - with the SR-20 and 22 IMs?

They state this quite clearly. You should be up to snuff on this if you
give as much 'advice' on the Cirrus product line as you have been lately.


You obviously are not "up to snuff" yourself and using outdated information.


LOL! My manuals are dated April, 2004.

ArtP wrote:

The original manuals did mention standard recovery for spirals and
incipient spins (spins which are about to start). Apparently too many
people did not understand the word incipient and read this to mean
normal spin recovery was possible. The manuals were updated and all
references to spin recovery other than CAPS were removed.

I won't refute that yet, but I think it's wrong. I think exactly the
reverse trend has occurred and reference to normal spin recovery
techniques were added... not removed. But I'll check in at work Sunday
and snag a couple of POHs ranging over the past couple of years to check.

You can't blame Cirrus for being silent - it's damned if they do, damned
if they don't. They have a proven, certified method for spin recovery.
Someone will fumble the ball and go down using botched 'normal'
recovery inputs and then Cirrus will have hell to pay. No, they're not
going to come out and say anything other than "The chute is the only
method we've demonstrated for spin recovery!"

ArtP wrote:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:34:14 GMT, Ryan Ferguson
wrote:


Cirrus is understandably mute on this issue due to liability concerns.
Until conventional recovery is approved (if ever), they will NEVER say,
"Sure, the airplane will recover normally from spins!" I've never spun
a 20 or 22 and I have no intention of ever doing so, because spins are a
prohibited maneuver per the AFM. But wake up and engage the noggin,
folks, if you think this airplane is somehow magically incapable of
recovering from spins!


Any pilot who ignores the POH because some guy on the internet said so
richly deserves the Darwin award they are likely to receive.

Amen to that, Art. I hope that pilots will reference the proper
information for the airplane - and use some common sense - in any
emergency scenario.

-Ryan

C J Campbell wrote:

Really? What were their names? When did you talk to them? And why are you
disputing what the manual, which is available on Cirrus' own web site,
clearly says? The sections of the manual that I have quoted were cut and
pasted from Cirrus' web site.

What you've ostensibly cut and pasted does not match any of my
materials, which are dated April, 2004.

C J Campbell wrote:

They state this quite clearly. You should be up to snuff on this if you
give as much 'advice' on the Cirrus product line as you have been lately.


You obviously are not "up to snuff" yourself and using outdated information.

Ha! CJ, fact-finding's just not your game. You apparently missed a
glaring, boldface disclaimer at:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/servicea...ilotoperators/

.... which states:

Note: Online POH data is for reference only and subject to change.

Not only that, opening up the PDF, it's clearly old - an early revision.
I will compare to my current and updated POH when I get my grubby
mitts on it again next week.

-Ryan

Thin "time", "attitude" and "deployment window". It amazes me that no one
manages to think of these two critical pieces whenever this topic comes up.





"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message
...
ArtP wrote:

The original manuals did mention standard recovery for spirals and
incipient spins (spins which are about to start). Apparently too many
people did not understand the word incipient and read this to mean
normal spin recovery was possible. The manuals were updated and all
references to spin recovery other than CAPS were removed.

I won't refute that yet, but I think it's wrong. I think exactly the
reverse trend has occurred and reference to normal spin recovery
techniques were added... not removed. But I'll check in at work Sunday
and snag a couple of POHs ranging over the past couple of years to check.

You can't blame Cirrus for being silent - it's damned if they do, damned
if they don't. They have a proven, certified method for spin recovery.
Someone will fumble the ball and go down using botched 'normal'
recovery inputs and then Cirrus will have hell to pay. No, they're not
going to come out and say anything other than "The chute is the only
method we've demonstrated for spin recovery!"

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
..

A) It has been spun.

When, and by whom? Show me the data.


B) It's being spun again for certification overseas.

Fine for you to say that, but again why should I believe you instead of
Cirrus?


But don't let facts get in the way of your usual anti Cirrus diatribe.

Who says I am anti-Cirrus? The Cirrus manual says the airplane cannot
recover from a spin except by deploying CAPS. Is Cirrus anti-Cirrus?

"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:

"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message
...

C J Campbell wrote:


You continue to say this even though the manual does not. The manual
actually prohibits attempts at normal recovery and requires immediate
deployment of the BRS.

Actually, the manual does say that - quite clearly, in fact.

Where's your Cirrus instructor kit - with the SR-20 and 22 IMs?

They state this quite clearly. You should be up to snuff on this if you
give as much 'advice' on the Cirrus product line as you have been
lately.


First of all, I would be interested in seeing any 'advice' that I have given
that was not posted on Cirrus' own web site.


You obviously are not "up to snuff" yourself and using outdated
information.


LOL! My manuals are dated April, 2004.

If you have more recent information, my apologies.

However, I still feel that this criticism of the pilot in this case, who was
merely following the instructions in his manual, is entirely unjustified. If
it makes me anti-Cirrus to quote Cirrus, then I suppose Cirrus is
anti-Cirrus, too. I note further down that some people think I may be too
pro- Cirrus.

The bottom line is that I really don't give a hoot what anyone thinks -- I
am going to use the best and most recent information that I have. If
somebody like you comes up with more recent information, I will use that, no
matter what I think of you personally. However, given that you began with a
wholly unwarranted personal attack, I will have to treat your assertions
with a certain amount of skepticism until I can verify them with Cirrus
personally.