Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

C J Campbell wrote:
The pilot in Florida had 600 hours in type, was instrument rated, and was a
founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That does not fit the description
of "more money than skill."

I cannot comment on that specific accident, because I don't remember
what happened. Perhaps he was atypical of the "problem" Cirrus pilot.
Perhaps he was the perfect example...I don't know.

What I do know is that the vast majority of accidents in any aircraft
type -- not just Cirrus -- are due to pilot error, and an awful lot of
the well-publicized Cirrus accidents seem to fit into the classic
category of "more money than skill". Call it the "Doctor Killer" syndrome.

The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin or even an incipient spin. Pilots are
supposed to deploy the chute if the Cirrus enters a spin. Fine, if you are
900' AGL or more. Probably more, if the chute takes longer to deploy when
the airplane is in a spin. So a departure stall or approach stall in this
airplane is going to be far more dangerous than in other aircraft.
snip

Where did you hear that the Cirrus is incapable of recovering from a
spin? I thought it was a condition of Part 23 certification that it
recover from a spin, but that it not be "approved" for intentional spins
if the manufacturer did not do the full spin test program. I'm no
certification expert, however, so I could certainly be wrong.

For what it's worth, the Seminole was reportedly never spin tested,
though its twin (the Beech Dutchess) was. Neither are approved for
spins, but at least they will recover from one.

Given that the most common GA accident is low level maneuvering: the slick
design of the Cirrus, the inadequate flaps, the poor stall handling
abilities, pilot unfamiliarity with the new equipment (which also keeps
pilots' eyes inside the cockpit), poor maintenance and quality control, and
the inability of the parachute to deploy at low altitude all seem to me to
add up to a lot of trouble.

Here we find some common ground. Cirrus does have some QC issues.
Diamond does too, for that matter. I'm not sure why maintenance is
suffering (God knows the local Cirrus service center is always packed,
so there is no apparent lack of attention these airplanes receive in the
shop), but mechanical problems remain the cause of a very small
percentage of the total number of accidents.

As for the parachute, I'll go back to my original point -- if I lose an
engine in a twin, I have a chance to bring the aircraft and passengers
home to fly another day. In effect, the other engine is my parachute.
The difference, of course, is that if I pull the chute in a Cirrus, it's
game over for the airplane. IMHO, it shouldn't be so easy to throw away
$300K.

And, on that note, I'll conclude by saying if I were a prospective
Cirrus buyer like Dennis, I'd be very concerned about the inevitable
increase in insurance cost for these airplanes. Pretty soon, having a
partner in a Cirrus won't just be a "nice-to-have" when it comes time to
pay the bills. It will be a requirement.

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
....

And let us be clear he stalls were a factor in a large percentage of
the
Cirrus accidents so far.

I have information on 35 Cirrus accidents and incidents. With the most
liberal interpretation, stalls could have been involved in at most 5 of
those. Do you consider 14% to be a "large percentage"? If so, you must be
an accountant for the federal government.

-Mike

In article , Dude wrote:

My point is that the Cirrus can be hard to
slow to approach speed. It takes more care than many other planes because
it is slick, and you cannot control the pitch of the prop to add drag. If
you had speed breaks you would allow the pilot more options to control
descent given that right now the system that governs the RPM/MP has limited
ability to slow the plane without cutting the throttle.

Bottom line is that if a person has speed breaks, he is less likely to fly
slow because he can shed speed whenever needed.

I've flown a Cirrus and while it does land fast compared to say a 182, it
didn't seem to be particularly hard to slow down compared to say a 182RG
with the gear up. They do have flaps, even if they don't have speed brakes,
and you can slip them if you need even more drag.

The thing I don't like about them is they land *fast* compared to something
of similar performance--like a 182RG. I like to at least pretend that if I can
find a nice big parking lot I can put a 182 into it--and I think I could, though
we'd probably hit something on the far end in a hopefully-survivable fashion.
I get the feeling I have to look for a long straight road in a Cirrus.

Mike Beede

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

Oh? So you did the certification flights that the company didn't do? Or
how
do you know that?

Sorry, but while the Cirrus might well prove to be less safe than other
planes, I just can't stand this cheap propaganda. The Cirrus CAN recover
from
a spin - it's a certification requirement! It is fulfilled by pulling the
chute. No other methods of recovery were officially tested. The FAA was
satisfied.

Well, we realize that you think this plane was built by the flawless gods,
but what happens when the Cirrus gets into an incipient spin when it is too
low to deploy the parachute? Most other aircraft can recover from such a
condition with room to spare. The Cirrus cannot.

In article , Doug Vetter wrote:

Where did you hear that the Cirrus is incapable of recovering from a
spin? I thought it was a condition of Part 23 certification that it
recover from a spin, but that it not be "approved" for intentional spins
if the manufacturer did not do the full spin test program. I'm no
certification expert, however, so I could certainly be wrong.

Per Cirrus the *only* approved recovery method for a spin
is to deploy the BRS. Several sources I found on the web state
that the chute was used to meet the part 23 requirement. I assume
they demonstrated a spin deployment in order to satisfy the
certification requirement.

There was at least one fatal accident that involved a spin. For
some reason, the pilot didn't deploy the chute. I suppose, like
most such situations, it seemed like a good idea at the time.
(That's not a joke, by the way--I assume in a life-threatening
situation that people do what seems sensible. That's why
we train for emergencies...).

Mike Beede

"Doug Vetter" wrote in message
et...


Where did you hear that the Cirrus is incapable of recovering from a
spin? I thought it was a condition of Part 23 certification that it
recover from a spin

It is a requirement. Cirrus could only meet it by saying that the way you
recover from a spin is to deploy the parachute. The airplane in testing
never successfully recovered from even an incipient spin without deploying
the chute.

I'm not sure speed brakes would help. They would probably hurt, in
fact!

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 17:30:07 GMT, "Dude" wrote:

Cirrus could improve their situation vastly by adding speed breaks.

This could reduce the stalls, at least on approach. It would also reduce
the severe shock cooling they are seeing due to their engine control system.

I believe I have seen Cirrus claim the plane can be revovered from a spin
normally, but experience to date has so far shown that may not be that easy.



"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Doug Vetter" wrote in message
et...

The SR20's limit of 12000 hours is still too limiting, IMHO, but I can
appreciate the FAA's conservatism regarding any new (indeed
revolutionary) design.

I was told by a Diamond rep that the Diamond aircraft do not have airframe
life limits. I would consider them to be just as revolutionary as the
Cirrus. However, I have not looked up the Diamond's type certificates to
verify the rep's claims.


However, I must disagree with the comment about the airplanes "falling
out of the sky" -- we just touched on this in Jay's thread. This has
NOTHING to do with the airplane. It has EVERYTHING to do with pilots
with more money than skill flying them.

Actually, it has EVERYTHING (sic) to do with the airplane, whether it is
some design flaw that causes them to disintegrate or whether it is a
design
flaw that makes them too difficult to fly for the pilots that are buying
them.

In any event, I think the FAA will eventually order Cirrus to get to the
bottom of it, no matter what the cause. The FAA nearly grounded Cirrus
with
the first rash of accidents. I doubt that their patience with Cirrus is
unlimited.

The pilot in Florida had 600 hours in type, was instrument rated, and was
a
founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That does not fit the
description
of "more money than skill."

The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin or even an incipient spin. Pilots
are
supposed to deploy the chute if the Cirrus enters a spin. Fine, if you are
900' AGL or more. Probably more, if the chute takes longer to deploy when
the airplane is in a spin. So a departure stall or approach stall in this
airplane is going to be far more dangerous than in other aircraft.

And let us be clear he stalls were a factor in a large percentage of
the
Cirrus accidents so far.

Given that the most common GA accident is low level maneuvering: the slick
design of the Cirrus, the inadequate flaps, the poor stall handling
abilities, pilot unfamiliarity with the new equipment (which also keeps
pilots' eyes inside the cockpit), poor maintenance and quality control,
and
the inability of the parachute to deploy at low altitude all seem to me to
add up to a lot of trouble.

"Mike Murdock" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
....

And let us be clear he stalls were a factor in a large percentage of
the
Cirrus accidents so far.

I have information on 35 Cirrus accidents and incidents.

The NTSB has information on only 18. Leaving out the latest three, two of
which may have involved stalls:

3/23/99 Cirrus stalls when aileron malfunctions
4/10/01 CFIT
6/16/01 Bounced landing. The report notices that the Cirrus has had eight of
these previously.
8/19/01 Bad fuel management.
9/19/01 Improper servicing; low oil.
3/16/02 Instrument failure, pilot disorientation
4/24/02 Stall/spin
5/28/02 CFIT
10/3/02 Improper maintenance, control surface failure
10/15/02 Deer strike
11/3/02 CFIT
1/18/03 Graveyard spin
1/23/03 CFIT
7/12/03 low level maneuvering, stall
8/15/03 stall
10/12/03 CFIT
12/27/03 low level maneuvering, stall
1/22/04 improper maintenance, brake failure

It appears that stalls are an unreasonably large percentage of accidents,
especially for a plane that was billed as stall-proof. CFIT seems to be the
biggest problem in the Cirrus, which would seem to support the
"doctor-killer" theory. Maintenance is also a real problem area.

Although it does not show up directly in the NTSB database, it appears that
bounced landings resulting in prop and tail strikes are a problem, though
not a deadly one. I don't know how many of the bounced landings were caused
by stalls.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
C,

...The Cirrus CAN recover from
a spin - it's a certification requirement! It is fulfilled by pulling the
chute. No other methods of recovery were officially tested. The FAA was
satisfied.

Unbelieveable! Is that really true? ...and you really think that is good
enough?

Don't get me wrong, I think the chute is a great thing, in the case of
midair, loss of control, control failure etc. it provides a unique survival
option; but it should be no replacement for good flying qualities. Pulling the
chute not only terminates the flight, but guarantees damage to the airframe,
guarantees an off-field landing, guarantees unwanted publicity, and puts the
lives of the occupants and possibly even people on the ground in serious danger.
A capability for a normal spin recovery sounds like a much better idea.


Vaughn

In article , Doug
Vetter wrote:

Where did you hear that the Cirrus is incapable of recovering from a
spin? I thought it was a condition of Part 23 certification that it
recover from a spin, but that it not be "approved" for intentional spins
if the manufacturer did not do the full spin test program. I'm no
certification expert, however, so I could certainly be wrong.

Go to the Cirrus Design website and download the POH. It says it there.