Airplane in NYC is a Cirrus SR20

Matt Barrow wrote:
"B A R R Y" wrote in message
om...
Matt Barrow wrote:
http://www.ainonline.com/Features/safety.pdf

Check the chart. Who does a more methodical job?
None of the charts on that link mention flight plans.

Which group, do you think, does a more methodical job?

I was curious to read a chart, along with the methodology used to
collect the data. _I_ think that people who file a flight plan may have
a better safety record. There are many other variables that can skew
the data either way, so I'm interested in the specifics, which I
couldn't find (in a reasonable amount of time related to my interest) in
the link you posted.


I used Adobe's search feature for "flight plan" within the document, and
still don't see what you're pointing out.

Do you need to have someone hold your hand?


I guess so. Have a sparkling day, once you've crapped out whatever it
is that's stuck up your ass.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

No. But the statement quoted is pure anecdotal evidence. Don't take it
too seriously.

Yep, because the quote just comes from Cirrus's test pilots, not a real
authority.

On a slightly less glib note, the POH states that CAPS chute deployment
is the only allowed method for spin recovery. That's a salient fact in
a discussion about SR-20/22 spins that shouldn't be overlooked.

....not that there's any evidence that this was a spin.

Tom Conner wrote:

Is there a design benefit for an aircraft to not be spin recoverable?

Yes, you can tack on a parachute and charge more for the plane.

I wonder if the pilots were turning left, got blown too far and too
close to the buildings by the strong wind yesterday, tried to bank even
more, stalled and spun. (An observer said he saw the plane bank
strongly and another saw the plane zig-zagging before it struck the
building, which sounds like a spin to me.) With an instructor aboard,
I doubt it was a visibility issue especially hearing that the vis was
8mi.

Tien

CPL-MEI

Two pilots, not a crew, heads up and locked. Go back to the
Munson accident and it was similar. Ever go to a school
reunion and meet an old teacher? You tend to become
deferential. That is what Munson did.
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/n...SB-AAR-80-2%22
works


wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Tom Conner wrote:
|
| Is there a design benefit for an aircraft to not be spin
recoverable?
|
| Yes, you can tack on a parachute and charge more for the
plane.
|
| I wonder if the pilots were turning left, got blown too
far and too
| close to the buildings by the strong wind yesterday, tried
to bank even
| more, stalled and spun. (An observer said he saw the
plane bank
| strongly and another saw the plane zig-zagging before it
struck the
| building, which sounds like a spin to me.) With an
instructor aboard,
| I doubt it was a visibility issue especially hearing that
the vis was
| 8mi.
|
| Tien
|
| CPL-MEI
|

My first thought after hearing about this crash was here is another
case of an inept Cirrus pilot tempting Darwinism and losing. Then I
wondered what could have caused this since I have ZERO knowledge of
the airspace and relevant factors affecting flight in that area.

Then I hear about the VFR corridor being only 2000' wide and a left
turn (to the west) with an easterly wind.

So at this point my initial perception may prove to be accurate.

Ron Lee

wrote:
Tom Conner wrote:

Is there a design benefit for an aircraft to not be spin recoverable?

Yes, you can tack on a parachute and charge more for the plane.

I wonder if the pilots were turning left, got blown too far and too
close to the buildings by the strong wind yesterday, tried to bank even
more, stalled and spun. (An observer said he saw the plane bank
strongly and another saw the plane zig-zagging before it struck the
building, which sounds like a spin to me.) With an instructor aboard,
I doubt it was a visibility issue especially hearing that the vis was
8mi.

Tien

CPL-MEI

Actually it is somewhat related to money. The designer had decided to
add the chute as a safety measure. Once that decision was made they
looked at what it would cost to certify the plane for spin recovery vs
using the chute for spin recovery. It was significantly cheaper to use
the chute then to certify it so they went that route. No one at the
company said you could not recover from a spin. They said you should
use the chute. They cannot say if you can recover from a spin any other
way due to legal restrictions.

John Theune wrote:

It was significantly cheaper to use
the chute then to certify it so they went that route.

Interesting. I had always believed it was the other way around.

TD

Tom Conner wrote:
"Ed Warner" wrote in message
oups.com...
"....Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible
to recover, according to the test pilots..."


Is there a design benefit for an aircraft to not be spin recoverable?


I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but I think I read something that
mentioned that the design features that make an aircraft difficult to
enter a spin can also make that plane difficult to recover from a spin
if it does get put in that situation.

Ben,

Yep, because the quote just comes from Cirrus's test pilots, not a real
authority.


Just because someone on the net writes that quote exists, doesn't mean it
does. "The test pilots say"? Give me a name. A source.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Do you need to have someone hold your hand?


I guess so. Have a sparkling day, once you've crapped out whatever it
is that's stuck up your ass.

Lol. So true.