If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SR22 Spin Recovery
or the pilot simply
followed the instructions to use the BSR in the event of a spin. Actually, the instructions are to try conventional recovery techniques and THEN deploy the chute if they don't work. I wonder if that was done. Also, I'd be very interested to know more about the involvement of autopilot operations in this one. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) Quite to the contrary! The direct quote from the SR22 POH is "Do not waste time and altitude trying to recover from a spiral/spin before activating CAPS."; and: "In all cases, if the aircraft enters an unusual attitude from which recovery is not expected before ground impact, immediate deployment of the CAPS is required."; and: "Inadvertent Spin Entry 1. CAPS .............................................. Activate" The complete Spin Chapter from the SR22 POH is quoted below. You should not make unsupported statements that actually could - if followed - endanger the lives of pilots and passengers by not following proper emergency procedures. Gerd ATP "Spins The SR22 is not approved for spins, and has not been tested or certified for spin recovery characteristics. The only approved and demonstrated method of spin recovery is activation of the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (See CAPS Deployment, this section). Because of this, if the aircraft "departs controlled flight," the CAPS must be deployed. While the stall characteristics of the SR22 make accidental entry into a spin extremely unlikely, it is possible. Spin entry can be avoided by using good airmanship: coordinated use of controls in turns, proper airspeed control following the recommendations of this Handbook, and never abusing the flight controls with accelerated inputs when close to the stall (see Stalls, Section 4). If, at the stall, the controls are misapplied and abused accelerated inputs are made to the elevator, rudder and/or ailerons, an abrupt wing drop may be felt and a spiral or spin may be entered. In some cases it may be difficult to determine if the aircraft has entered a spiral or the beginning of a spin. • WARNING • In all cases, if the aircraft enters an unusual attitude from which recovery is not expected before ground impact, immediate deployment of the CAPS is required. The minimum demonstrated altitude loss for a CAPS deployment from a one-turn spin is 920 feet. Activation at higher altitudes provides enhanced safety margins for parachute recoveries. Do not waste time and altitude trying to recover from a spiral/spin before activating CAPS. Inadvertent Spin Entry 1. CAPS .................................................. ............................... Activate Revision A1" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Gwengler,
Quite to the contrary! You are right. The POH copy I had access to and which I quoted from must be outdated, since it does describe the procedure the way I posted it. But the POH as posted on the Cirrus website does have just one action item on the spin list: CAPS: Activate. Thanks for the correction. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Russell wrote in message . ..
I don't have an opinion either way on this issue because I don't have any personal knowledge (I know, that's no excuse on Usenet). I will say this, however. The language in the manual would not by itself convince me that a conventional spin recovery was impossible. The fact that the manual requires the immediately deployment of the parachute is a reflection of the fact that Cirrus did not go through the spin recovery certification process and therefore cannot recommend a conventional spin recovery technique. As far as I'm concerned the language in the manual is what it is for legal reasons and does not definitively support either side of the issue regarding the possibility of recovery. After speaking with the test pilot from Mooney I was surprised how much of the POH comes from marketing and legel and how little comes from engineering and test pilots. That's one reason cruise speeds don't seem to work out. Cruise speeds come from marketing. -Robert |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Robert,
You are repeating a common myth in general aviation regarding the POH. Perhaps cruise speeds come from marketing at Mooney (although I've never noticed it to be the case), they certainly do not at Cessna, New Piper or Cirrus. In the evaluations I've done of those aircraft they invariably beat book speeds by from one to four knots. Cessna cruise speeds are at full gross weight and New Piper's at "mid-cruise weight". All three companies, in my experience, are extremely careful to provide accurate information on performance in their POHs, knowing that they will be subject to scrutiny by the aviation media. I will agree that in the 1960s and early 1970s, before POHs (pre-1976) a number of manufacturers, notably Maule and the Piper rag-wing airplanes and the very early Cherokees, gave cruise performance numbers that were seriously optimistic and thus tainted the entire industry. They were called on it repeatedly by the mid-70s, notably by Aviation Consumer, and the practice ended, and the aircraft I examined, Beech, Grumman/Gulfstream singles, Cessna, New Piper, Cirrus and the current Adam A500, met or exceeded book performance figures. All the best, Rick (Robert M. Gary) wrote in message . com... Richard Russell wrote in message . .. I don't have an opinion either way on this issue because I don't have any personal knowledge (I know, that's no excuse on Usenet). I will say this, however. The language in the manual would not by itself convince me that a conventional spin recovery was impossible. The fact that the manual requires the immediately deployment of the parachute is a reflection of the fact that Cirrus did not go through the spin recovery certification process and therefore cannot recommend a conventional spin recovery technique. As far as I'm concerned the language in the manual is what it is for legal reasons and does not definitively support either side of the issue regarding the possibility of recovery. After speaking with the test pilot from Mooney I was surprised how much of the POH comes from marketing and legel and how little comes from engineering and test pilots. That's one reason cruise speeds don't seem to work out. Cruise speeds come from marketing. -Robert |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message om... After speaking with the test pilot from Mooney I was surprised how much of the POH comes from marketing and legel and how little comes from engineering and test pilots. That's one reason cruise speeds don't seem to work out. Cruise speeds come from marketing. There are a few design speeds that are certification issues, however the cruise numbers aren't one of them (except by coincidence). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Whatever you do, don't quote the manual's instructions on spin recovery.
There are some religious fanatics here who will tell you that you are ignorant and unfit to fly and anti-Cirrus. Since Cirrus wrote the manual, perhaps Cirrus is anti-Cirrus as well? :-) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote: Whatever you do, don't quote the manual's instructions on spin recovery. Well, you are quoting them to support your assertion that a Cirrus WILL NOT recover from a spin. That is like saying I CAN'T ride my bicycle without a helmet because the owner's manual says don't do it. -- Dan (still digging) C-172RG at BFM |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a more practical way of putting it. You're at 14,000', which gives you, let's just say, 10,000' to work with, which strikes me as a fair amount. Do you even bother trying? Is there a risk that the stall will tighten and/or accelerate to the point that the CAPS will not deploy properly to recover the aircraft? FWIW I have seen a spin once, from the front seat of a Pitts 12 years ago (before I was a pilot). It was the most disorienting thing I have ever experienced. I'd be very happy I think to have that lever to pull. Best, -cwk. "Richard Russell" wrote in message ... I don't have an opinion either way on this issue because I don't have any personal knowledge (I know, that's no excuse on Usenet). I will say this, however. The language in the manual would not by itself convince me that a conventional spin recovery was impossible. The fact that the manual requires the immediately deployment of the parachute is a reflection of the fact that Cirrus did not go through the spin recovery certification process and therefore cannot recommend a conventional spin recovery technique. As far as I'm concerned the language in the manual is what it is for legal reasons and does not definitively support either side of the issue regarding the possibility of recovery. Rich "glad I don't have to make the pull-no pull decision" Russell |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"C Kingsbury" wrote in message k.net... Here's a more practical way of putting it. You're at 14,000', which gives you, let's just say, 10,000' to work with, which strikes me as a fair amount. Do you even bother trying? Is there a risk that the stall will tighten and/or accelerate to the point that the CAPS will not deploy properly to recover the aircraft? There is no risk of that. Look, the airplane descended several thousand feet before the pilot deployed CAPS. Surely he was attempting to recover during that time? I simply do not understand this criticism of a pilot who was following the published procedures in his aircraft manual. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
inverted spin recovery explanation | Alan Wood | Aerobatics | 18 | August 19th 04 03:32 PM |
Cirrus and Lancair Make Bonanza Obsolete? | Potential Bo Buyer | Owning | 211 | November 20th 03 05:29 AM |
Cessna 150 Price Outlook | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 80 | October 16th 03 02:18 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |