Another Cirrus Crash - Yes Another

[NoGlassinCockpit]

Sad news. Cirus 22 crashed in Florida Sunday killing the one person onboard. Prelimimary reports indicate the stall issue again. Anybody have any further information?

[Aussie Andy]

NoGlassinCockpit, your moniker seems to give away that you have some sort of agenda which is anti-modern glass cockpitted aircraft...

When you say "another" what do you imply? Does the accident rate compare unfavourably with other marques? Is there any evidence from investigating authorities that the crashes are linked to the aircraft's design or manufacturing flaws? If so then we'd all probably find it interesting. If not then you may not have much impact.

Cheers!

Andy :ok:

p.s. I don't own one, and I have no connection with any Cirrus groups... but I have flown in one with a friend (there, that's my cards on the table at least!)

[Chilli Monster]

Why 'again' mentioned regarding the stall warner?

A read of the 10 fatal accident reports available at http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp gives the impression that CFIT or spatial disorientation due to unqualified IMC flight is more of a problem - the stall indications becoming 'because' of the above, not the cause of it.

There's an old saying - there are lies, damn lies and statistics. In the same 4 year period since the first Cirrus fatal there have been another 9 fatal's. Piper single engined, low wing fatals for the same period amounted to 85! Do we think there's a problem with them - no.

Sensationalising does nothing for credibility NGC

[Confabulous]

I agree Andy, another Cirrus crash is not indicative of any design flaw, imagined or otherwise.

NGC,

All Cirrii have been JAR and FAR Part 23 tested, which would've uncovered any obvious aerodynamic flaws.

I believe the Cirrus has a laminar flow wing. I doubt it's an issue, but some people seem to think it could be less than safe. The only reason they think this is because they are ignorant as to the real facts. Beside the aircraft shouldn't be even flow close to a stall warning.

The bottom line is this - most aircraft accidents are caused by human factors, if it stalled then it was flown above max alpha. No standard GA aircraft is controllable above max alpha without either significant skill (we're talking test pilots here - where's Genghis when you need him?) or luck, no matter how well designed.

Also, glass cockpits prevent accidents. No more loss of terrain/situational awareness, no more instrument errors, no more of that horrible 'by guess and by gosh' attitude, no more vacum failure either.

My views on the Diamond TwinStar are reasonably well known in here, and that has a lam flow wing and a glass cockpit, not to mention ignition/compression engines.

Are you going to tell me it's not safe because it's new? Maybe you work for Cessna and efficiency scares you?

Get a life. And wait until after the investigation.

[Aussie Andy]

G'day Confabulous,glass cockpits prevent accidentsI'm not sure I'd go that far... there are other factors, to take into account - e.g. training and human factors that may be come into play when using these systems, particularly in the approch phase - and I think it will take time for some of these things to work through, as with any new technology.

This does not mean I am against the new technology - quite the opposite in fact. Just as an example, I have seen the lovely glass gear inadvertently (or at least without P1 or P2 realising it had done so) lock-on to an LLZ in back-course mode as the aircraft flew cross-wind, then when eventually on final approach coming from the other direction, had remained in back-course mode... the fact that the LLZ indications weren't as they out to be was apparent at least to the two people not weaing foggles at the time, but no-one was sufficiently familiar with the gear to quickly figure out which buttons to push to sort this out pronto at the time! But I don't see this as a failure of the technology as much as a need to improve user-interface and/or training.

And on the othere side of the coin of course, you are quite right to point out that there are additional benefits - like integrated terrain and collision avoidance, engine & fuel management wizardry, etc. - which may well more than offset the sorts of issues I refer to above. We will tell over time. My bet would be that it's going to be net-net positive for safety. Others may bet otherwise... and they can choose not to fly these! I will as soon as I can afford to do so regularly as I believe currency will be key to getting the most out of the new displays...

Andy :ok:

[Confabulous]

Andy,

You're quite right - I might've overstated my case a bit - one of the most common things you'll hear in glass cockpits is 'What the %&$ is it doing now?"

currency will be key to getting the most out of the new displays

Too true - we'll probably see more accidents related to fixation on something the pilot doesn't understand about modes etc. Under all the glass, it's still an aircraft.

Chances are next gen GA aircraft will come with sim training, abnormal procedures... even at the moment Garmin are developing a 'proper' autopilot for the G1000 with VNAV & FMS.

IMO, the SR22 and DA-42 are only the start - things will accelerate from here on - expect HUD and EOS technology, dual autopilots, mini turboprops (already available), realtime performance based flight planning, and gofd knows what else.

And autothrottles! Why aren't autothrottles available yet?

It's going to be fun.

[shortstripper]

An analogy. (Oh dear ... now you'll really think I'm nuts :p )

Over the last ten years or so, tractor manufacturers have taken it as trendy to introduce more and more "glass" cabs. Gone are simple hydraulic levers, dial gauges and even normal gear levers! Now we farmers are presented with electric turn dials to set lift arm heights, led displays of engine parameters and PTO speeds ect and nudge or press button gears just like in formular one racing cars! :uhoh:

Last week our feeder wagon broke so we borrowed one from a neighbour. It came with it's own tractor. Now this tractor was HUGE! very impressive, and with more sophisticated "glass" cockpit than any SR22 pilot could dream of (it even had a gps slaved thingy for applying different rates of fertiliser to different parts of a field!!!). First problem ... I couldn't start it! :{ (phonecall) Then it wouldn't move once in gear despite doing so previously (another phonecall) :ugh: ) ... hmmm! eventually sussed it and fed the cows that evening. The next morning at around 3am I attempted to feed the cows breakfast. Now I couldn't get the PTO (Power Take Off "drives the feeder wagon") to engage :mad: It worked OK the evening before! again and again I tried, no joy! RIGHT! unhitched the :mad: thing and put my old tractor on the wagon and fed (an hour late by now). Once done I swapped tractors again ready to take it back to our neighbour so he could feed his cows. I thought ... "lets try the PTO again" well bu**er me! it worked now! :mad: .... Took it back and quizzed the neighbour ... "yes there's some sort of fault with the wizardry, it sometimes does that!" GRRRRRRRRRRR! :mad:

My point? This new tractor does nothing more or better than my old one (save perhaps the gps thingy). It's new yes, but technology wise, mine will do everything the new one does, but with levers, gears and gauges. The new tractor probably costs several thousand more than it needs to because of the electrics. Also levers, gears and dials seem IMHO to give more sensory feedback and rarely go wrong.

So .... Glass safer? Nah! would I ever go for a glass cockpit? dunno? would I knock anyone else for wanting one? No way! ... It's horses for courses again, but for now I'll stick to traditional cockpits I think (of course that's all I can afford anyway :\ )

SS :ok:

[NoGlassinCockpit]

Back to the original question..any more info?

I am not anti glass, quite the opposite my current types are all EFIS/EICAS and I think they add to situational awareness and are much safer.

But I do have a problem with an aircraft that wont recover from a spin and requires good concentration in or about the stall.

No, I wont buy that cirrus marketing tripe about the chute. I am amazed why others do!

Confabulous - JAR certified? Well not acording to Cirrus website! I wolud be surprised but maybe somebody has more info.

Stalling - remember when you get close to the stall on the *hitty night,(I hope never) disorientated, in the clag, long day,slow reactions, you are already well below the notional performance level of the 'average pilot'. Think.

[Confabulous]

Think

That's the point NGC - think and survive. A lot of dead pilots didn't. And I'm in no way perfect.

The SR20 is EASA certificated, and other type certification continues. See their website.

Cirrus Press Release Page (http://www.cirrusdesign.com/news/press/)

Cirrii don't need stall recovery - they have BRS. Reach up, undo the safety and pull with 64lbs of force. 3 seconds later, you're floating under a chute.

Stall recovery is never assured, ever. Tiny aerodynamic changes to the wings, tail, pilot technique, CG - nothing in aerodynmaics is certain.

Besides, you're committing the biggest sin in aviation - speculating with no hard data. That's gotten plenty killed.

But I do have a problem with an aircraft that wont recover from a spin and requires good concentration in or about the stall.

Speculating without data again... and once again, stall behaviour is not fixed.


Shortstripper,

Great analogy, makes you think - 'tis just a fancy display after all!

PS: I don't even think Cirrus have developed anything new really, engine's still the same old dinosaur and I think they could've done better for the price - I just don't like years of anybody's (Cirrus's) work being denigrated by assumptions.

[englishal]

it even had a gps slaved thingy for applying different rates of fertiliser to different parts of a field!!!).
Aren't these great:D Apparently it talks to the GPS thingy in your combine harvester, which knows how much corn it chopped from what part of the field, and tells the tractor to dump more fertilizer in the sparse bits....which makes you more money, and you can go flying more often :}

Glass is coming whether we like it or not. It is up to a pilot flying a glass cockpit aircraft to know how to use the systems, and understand the aircraft, if not then they shouldn't really be flying it. I'm all for it and when I can get my hands on a Twin Star this year.....:D

Saw a nifty 3D terrain display at the Aopa Expo last year. It generated, in real time a 3D representation of the terrain, with airways, ILS's and other nav overlayed as corridors. Brilliant piece of kit, which in theory should stop just about anyone flying into a mountain.

[NoGlassinCockpit]

Quote:

"Cirrii don't need stall recovery - they have BRS. Reach up, undo the safety and pull with 64lbs of force. 3 seconds later, you're floating under a chute"

Maybe - provided you are above 3,000ft, below xxxkts, the thing works and your not afraid to pull until its too late (remember you will deffo write the aircraft (your aircraft) off and if Mr Insurance man thinks you pulled a second too soon then forget any payout....ANY!). Lets presume you get this far - you are floating vertically at 1,600 - 1,800fpm with whatever drift is imposed by lateral wind. Landing in water or on something spikey is the least of your worries, God forbid you land on the local school or Mrs Smith driving her sprogs home ! Now even the POH claims it is the equivalent of being dropped from 13ft (add on the bottom of your spine). Walking away is not a guarantee or anything close it is more the equivalent of russian roulette.

[KitKatPacificuk]

All very interesting

NGC

I've heard lots about people saying the Cirrus is dangerous near the stall etc etc etc. All rubbish really.

I have 600+ hours in all different models of Cirrus from the early SR20's to the new SR22's.
I regularly put them into full stalls and they are no different from any other light aircraft. You ever flown a PA38? They are very easy to inadvertantley spin and yes they do have a good spin recovery, but if you can't get it out of the spin then what? Pull the chute?
Infact the Cirrus are very difficult to put into a spin, and you can see and feel the incipient stages of the stall and spin very early.

Quote:
_________________________________________
"Cirrii don't need stall recovery - they have BRS. Reach up, undo the safety and pull with 64lbs of force. 3 seconds later, you're floating under a chute"


Maybe - provided you are above 3,000ft, below xxxkts, the thing works and your not afraid to pull until its too late (remember you will deffo write the aircraft (your aircraft) off and if Mr Insurance man thinks you pulled a second too soon then forget any payout....ANY!). Lets presume you get this far - you are floating vertically at 1,600 - 1,800fpm with whatever drift is imposed by lateral wind. Landing in water or on something spikey is the least of your worries, God forbid you land on the local school or Mrs Smith driving her sprogs home ! Now even the POH claims it is the equivalent of being dropped from 13ft (add on the bottom of your spine). Walking away is not a guarantee or anything close it is more the equivalent of russian roulette.
__________________________________________________
This is all very amusing NGC you have no idea.!!!

From pulling the chute to full deployment happens in 920ft. It has a demonstrated deployment of 135kts. So Therefore if I needed to pull it at a lower height or higher speed I would. And when the shoot is pulled it does not write the aircraft off. Aircraft have been rebuilt after the chute has been pulled. The seats are stressed for 27G and it is like dropping from 10ft.

I could explain more, but I can't be bothered.


Glass cockpits are here to stay. They are all about management. If you know how to use them they are fantastic. If you don't they are more confusing than the standard analogue layouts. I love both, and enjoy flying with both. Get used to it don't fight it and you may even enjoy it!

[Confabulous]

I'm all for it and when I can get my hands on a Twin Star this year.....

...you'll hand it it over to me for 'flight testing & evaluation' :E

[S-Works]

our club crashed a 152 and a PA28 over Christmas.

YES ANOTHER SPAM CAN CRASH..............

Not a glass cockpit in sight.

[Confabulous]

our club crashed a 152 and a PA28 over Christmas

Must be those bad design characteristics again, eh NGC? :hmm:

On a serious note, hope no-one was hurt bose!

[NoGlassinCockpit]

KitpacifiK

Quote: “I have 600+ hours in all different models of Cirrus from the early SR20's to the new SR22's. From pulling the chute to full deployment happens in 920ft. It has a demonstrated deployment of 135kts…. And when the shoot is pulled it does not write the aircraft off”

Well Kit congratulations on still being alive, but with over 600hrs I suggest you dust off the Cirrus POH.

Here are some leads from it….

2-12. “Max demonstrated parachute deployment speed is 133KIAS.”
But its not that straightforward……oh noooo…..
10- 4. “make all reasonable efforts to slow to min airspeed”
and…..
10-4. “keep 2’000 agl in mind as cut-off decision altitude”
but there is more….
“the chute should be activated from a wings level upright altitude”
this is getting funny…..
3-21. “WARNING. Deployment is expected to result in loss of airframe”
ooh not so funny…
3-21. “high deployment speed, low altitude, rough terrain or high wind may result in injury and death”.

There you have it Kit.

By the way, are the seats stressed 27g vertically?

[englishal]

Still, in a PA28 your options are:

Bend down, and kiss your arse goodbye.

know which I'd rather risk

[Aussie Andy]

NoGlassinCockpit,

I'm not sure what you're arguing re- the BRS: do you think it's a bad thing and shouldn't exist? If so, then do you think the alternative (no BRS) is safer? If so, why? What other alternatices do you have in mind?

Thanks,

Andy

p.s. I routinely fly without one (PA28, P28B) but would love to have this worst-case-scenario option if it were available to me because I know I should practice my PFL's more..!

[Confabulous]

NGC,

This is getting ridiculous to say the least. You sound like a rookie reporter having a slow day.

Here's the points so far:

1. Cirrus aircraft are FAR 23 and EASA certified. Read up on the regs. No unusual skill must be required to handle the aircraft up to and during the stall.

2. We have no idea what happened in the most recent Cirrus accident until the prelim report comes out.

3. We have someone here with 600+ hrs time on Cirrus products with no problems mentioned. For our own sake we would expect them to tell us if there were problems.

4. Cirrus would have everything to lose by hiding adverse aerodynamic characteristics.

5. As Englishal mentioned, have you ever flown a PA28? What would you plan to do if you inadvertantly spun it? Die, most probably. Same here, I'd rather risk a 27G landing (humans can survive up to 40-50G instantaneous accel) then a forced landing at night in unknown terrain. And yes, the seats are certified for 27G vertical - certifying them for 27G horizontal would be overkill.

6. Have you ever flown in a commercial aircraft, by any chance? Not one of them are certified for spin recovery. An A300 was spun once - and recovered - but hit the ground before it could pull out. Everyone died.

7. Ever flown a twin GA a/c? None of them are certified for spinning either.

8. So, would you deem Boeing and Airbus unsafe? Boeing certainly have an interesting history, but I'd fly one anyday.

Sounds like you don't fly at all if you think the aircraft can't be recovered for a spin? Forget flying for the airlines so.

[Aussie Andy]

... and what about PA38s?? Our club won't let these be spun either... yet they are a very popular training machine.

Andy

[NoGlassinCockpit]

Some people are getting a little touchy here.

1. “Cirrus aircraft are FAR 23 and EASA certified”

Fact: The SR 22 is NOT EASA certified. It is technically undergoing EASA certification. As it will not recover from a spin it will be undergoing EASA certification for some time…..you can be sure. Don’t buy the PR !

4 Correct , never said they did. Don’t just believe the adman garbage, read the POH, it gives a much more realistic assessment of surviveability chances.
5 Never flown this type and never will, not if it wont recover from a spin. This is really my point, in 2005 you no longer have to fly aircraft with nasty quirks. There are plenty of options available.
6,7,8. Cannot see your point, I fly professionally for an airline (and fly occasionally in singles for pleasure), we are not comparing multi-engined, multi-crew aircraft here! Commercial aircraft very rarely stall, a spin is almost unknown, but that is not the case with light singles, flown often by people with much less experience, not to mention skill.

[surely not]

Ok, disclaimer first.............I am not a pilot.

I am however confused as to why NGC is so anti Cirrus? There is little confirmed evidence re the causes for the latest Cirrus crash in any of his posts, but there is a lot of rubbishing of the product from NGC's personal view. So why is rubbishing the Cirrus so important to you NGC? You could pick on several other types as having unpleasant characteristics but you concentrate on the Cirrus. Why?

If the aircraft is such a safety concern for you, then fly something else, there's plenty of choice, and let others make their own choices.

[Confabulous]

NGC,

The chances of the SR22 failing to get EASA certification are roughly the same as the chances of any of us understanding your Cirrus bashing diatribe.

The BRS system that Cirrus use is mandatory on microlights in Germany. That doesn't mean they have poor spin recovery characteristics.

I'll close with this: You have no proof of any aerodynamic flaws in the aircraft. You're a professional pilot. That still gives you no insight, as professional pilots are not trained in flight testing and evaluation, and they can't judge aerodynamic characteristics by just looking at pictures either. Neither have you flown a Cirrus for any great length of time. All you have to go on is rumour, stories and bar talk. That's not enough.

Come up with conclusive technical proof of aerodynamic design flaws in the Cirrus SR22 or post this in Rumours & News.

PS: I agree wholeheartedly with SN

[Sheilanagig]

From FAR and EASA certification procedures are extremely similiar.

Is this guy for real.

I sincerely hope he is not involved in any serious way in aviation.

[eharding]

NGC,

How often do you practice fully developed spin recovery
when you "fly occasionally in singles for pleasure"?

Just curious.

Ed.

[NoGlassinCockpit]

eharding.

To be honest not in the last year because current types, although spin recoverable do not require practise for currency or recency.


Have literally done thousands in a previous stage of my career.

I dont really see why it is relevant to this thread, my private flying current types all have 'standard' spin recovery technique. If I ever need it (hopefully not) then its there, no drama.

Still no harm in being curious, that after all is why I am asking about the cirrus.

If it makes some poor sod think a bit, and saves a life then Ill be well pleased.

[eharding]

NGC,

Fair enough....

Ed.

[MLS-12D]

I have the vague impression that there do seem to be rather a lot of mysterious Cirrus accidents. But Bose-X is quite correct that Piper/Cessna/Beech/etc. accidents may well be relatively more common (on absolute terms, no doubt they are more common, since the respective fleet sizes are much bigger), and we just don't hear about them.

Personally I don't think much of high-tech cockpits (too expensive to repair, and unnecessarily sophisticated for the type of flying I do). But that is only a personal decision.

Get a life.I don't know what vested interest, if any, NoGlassinCockpit may have. However, I respectfully suggest that this sort of aggressive comment is unnecessarily hostile and much more likely to lead to a heated argument than a reasoned discussion/debate. :(

[IO540]

I don't know why ANYBODY speaks against a BRS chute.

It has NO drawbacks - other than slight extra weight and the impact of that on speed and therefore range is no more than the average UK pilot would create after eating a standard American diet for a year :O

Let's look at the advantages.

You can fly over mountains or dense forest, without a risk of almost certain death if the engine goes.

You can survive any likely loss of control or structural failure, perhaps even a wing or tail fin coming off.

It should also help a lot with ditching. Certainly the ditching should take place with the windows intact, which has to be a major plus.

It's like some arguing that there is no point in carrying a life raft over water because "they will never get out anyway" etc. Why accept a certain death, when you can give yourself a decent chance?

Now look at the huge extra operating cost of a twin, especially the very old ones which dominate the market. What that basically gives you is insurance against en-route engine failure. I know twin owners do it for good reasons of their own but everything in life is a risk and unless one is exceedingly risk averse the numbers don't stack up for a twin. The sales of singles, and the virtually dead market for new piston twins speak volumes in favour of this.

I don't think the chute will help in the sort of situation where a PPL might get into a spin (base to final turn, going 10kt above the stall speed, say 600ft AGL) because one isn't high enough. That will still be a matter of training, flying proper speeds and making sure the plane is trimmed for the desired speed.

Personally, I would have made a Cirrus retractable; they chuck away a lot of fuel in the fixed gear so I would have had it retractable and put in a radar altimeter with a gear warning at the DH - that should have satisfied the American insurance companies, and it would save a lot more lives than the Skywatch TCAS they advertise. But Marketing Dept won here and everybody pays perhaps 25% extra for the juice, for ever.

Planes like the Cirrus are badly needed to drag GA kicking and screaming into the post-WW2 era.

[S-Works]

No fatalities in our 2 recent incidents other than to the aircraft themselves.

I could swear there is now a certified Cirrus on the G-reg? Turweston maybe or Wellesbourne?

As long as there are aircraft in the sky there will be accidents. It is the nature of the game and I suspect that certain element of risk that keeps a lot of people flying!

[MLS-12D]

As long as there are aircraft in the sky there will be accidents. It is the nature of the game and I suspect that certain element of risk that keeps a lot of people flying!I agree 100% with both points made.

There is a wonderful passage on the attraction of risk in the early part of Nevil Shute Norway's autobiography, Slide Rule (concerning one of his schoolmasters who enjoyed ocean racing in small yachts).

[Confabulous]

MLS,

Get a life

I got rather heated about the whole issue, it's not normally my way. There may be issues with Cirrii (as there has been with the DA-40TDi Star and all Cessnas) in the future. But let's not hammer the nails in the coffin lid before it's even on the casket!

I do accept that the 'get a life' comment was wide of the mark.

And NGC, I think we're seeing the same coin from different sides. I'd be delighted to help save even one life in future, but since we don't know what the problem is (if any), we can't go groping in the dark. We have to wait and see.

Niall

[NoGlassinCockpit]

IO540

Quote: “You can survive any likely loss of control or structural failure, perhaps even a wing or tail fin coming off.”

From the Cirrus POH “the chute should be activated from a wings level upright altitude”

Perhaps you might accept that with a wing missing (to quote your own example) it is a little tricky to keep the old straight n level. I guess more or less the same after a midair…heh!

Quote: “Now look at the huge extra operating cost of a twin, especially the very old ones which dominate the market.”

Couldn’t agree more..result!

Quote: “I don't think the chute will help in the sort of situation where a PPL might get into a spin (base to final turn, going 10kt above the stall speed, say 600ft AGL) because one isn't high enough.”

Exactly, that’s what it says on the tin.

Quote: “Planes like the Cirrus are badly needed to drag GA kicking and screaming into the post-WW2 era.”

Yes, but the key word is planes LIKE cirrus, there are others out there.

Quote: “don't know why ANYBODY speaks against a BRS chute”

Funny because I don’t know any pro-pilot that thinks it is a good idea (well 95% of em), most in fact think it is down right dangerous because it eliminates the time honored maxim that should be drilled into every one of us from day 1…” in an emergency FLY THE AIRCRAFT”

The only people I have heard speaking in its favour are the snake oil salesmen at Cirrus and those that hadn’t the savy to spot marketing from reality and who were dumb enough to spend their hard earned cash on the aviation equivalent of Dr Feelgoods cure all elixir. Having bought, they now haven’t the cajones to speak out because they will be aware that the bottom could fall out of the Cirrus market tomorrow.

Con/Niall.

No hard feeling mate, ultimately were all on the same side.

[Confabulous]

Cheers NGC.

I do agree with you that a BRS could be seen as a 'cure all', especially since the impact would be bonerattling to say the least. However, from an objective angle (and I'm sure Cirrus pilots think like this too) the BRS is an absolute last resort.

From reading ASRS Reports (http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov), I get the impression that, during an abnormal situation, one of the last thought a pilot has is 'What do I do next?', or they simply freeze, or fixate. The BRS may simply not occur to him in the final moment.

Personally I would hesitate before pulling the handle - simply because I would wonder if there's anything else I could do. But in the end it's better to touch the ground under a 'chute then hit the ground at very high speed.

It's acceptable risk that gets us up there, and it's acceptable risk that will bring us back down. I'd prefer to risk the BRS system.

I seem to remember a (very mangled) quote from Ernie Gann: 'Pilots will argue over the regulations until they're blue in the face, but they wouldn't be pilots if they didn't like taking risks.'

There will be better aircraft then the Cirrus soon enough. The engine is relatively inefficient and could be better substituted with the newer 3 litre Thielert diesel for efficiency's sake.

My ideal GA aircraft would have:

1. The Garmin G1000 cockpit with flight director and HITS.
2. An integrated FMS/autopilot with VNAV/LNAV capability.
3. A radar/laser altimeter with GPWS tied to a terrain database.
4. An autothrottle with max range, max power & max econ setting
5. A very low drag airframe/very long range/rectractable gear.
6. Twin engines.
7. A HUD (Heads Up Display) for approach/landing.

and finally (and probably most important)

8. An alpha/FPV indicator with aural/visual warning

So far, only the DA-42 TwinStar even comes close. But it's still not enough. All Cirrus has done is put a new face on an unremarkable product (in terms of fuel efficiency), much like Boeing's 737NG upgrade.

I know some will baulk at the sheer amount of electronics in that list, but too many lives have been lost to doing something a computer could assist with - take the L1101 slat retraction accident - Airbus deliberately put a slat locking command into the software - if you command flaps up below a certain speed, they simply won't come up beyond Flaps 1.

That said, an aircraft is still subject to the laws of aerodynamics and must be treated with respect.

[Chilli Monster]

take the L1101 slat retraction accident

I thought that was a Trident - not a Tristar.

[Confabulous]

Trident so, I stand corrected.

[deice]

I never knew for a fact the Cirrus couldn't recover from a spin.
Is it a fact or just speculation?

Sure, the chute is for reassurance. Not for the pilot perhaps but his wife and kids. Even the Klapmeiers have said so, sort of. Besides that the Cirrus seems like a nice flying machine (I've only tried one about 40 minutes).

Fighter jocks and glider pilots have chutes, what's the big deal ?

What really bothers me is how Cessna, Piper and the rest of the coke can manufacturers can keep putting out the same old garbage. We're talking 1950s design here. Would you be happy driving your 1950 VW Beetle for another 50 yrs? Any amount of airbags wouldn't make it a safe car.

The Cirrus is a lot safer than most older designs not due to it's chute but it's crashworthiness. It's designed to more stringent requirements that came about in the early 1970s. The first and only (up to the development of Cirrus/Lancair/Diamond) aircraft designed to meet those requirements was the Rockwell Commander. And it shows. The Commander is built like a tank. I know, I have one. Friends of mine survived a crash in a Commander that would've made a Piper look like fine origami.

The Cirrus aren't the only aircraft classified as spin resistant. The Lancairs are too, with a rudder limiter no less.
Wonder what their stall is like.

[Confabulous]

Deice,

A telling point - crashworthiness might just be the key to this whole debate. I can't speak for Cirrus, but I know that Diamond's airframes are failsafe - if one part of the structure fails, another will take up the load - case in point, the TwinStar's wing is moulded in two halves, upper and lower and bonded together. If one half breaks, the other will hold it together. Not ideal, but far better than aluminium. Actually in all crashes involving a Diamond composite aircraft, not one has been destroyed - wings ripped off, but the cockpit area was intact every time. I'm sure Cirrus has the same idea.

Find a level place to force land and you'll survive. In a properly constructed aircraft that is. Take the Cessna 172 - draughty, 3 point harnesses and virtually no thought to survivability.

/RANT MODE ON

Frankly I'm surprised they don't just fall apart. Yes, they're great training aircraft, but they're - let's face it - dinosaurs. I read an article in this months 'Flying' about the G1000 equipped 182... and laughed until it hurt. It strikes me as stunning arrogance to sell a 50's Cessna with 21st century technology. Yet you'll find many people harping on about the ruggedness and reliability of the Cessna - becuase they either haven't thought about the construction, or they've been brainwashed by bar talk.

Apologies for waffling, the quagmire of cr8p 50's GA designs is a pet hate of mine. $300,000 for what equates to junk. That said, many many new designs nowadays use the same construction. Why? I can't understand it.

The traditional aero piston engine is not built to tight enough specs, not efficient enough (practical SFC's of .440 if you're lucky), not reliable enough and vulnerable to every form of mismanagement possible.

Come on guys, stop buying Cessna & Piper - do the GA industry a favour. Time for a change.

Conf

/RANT MODE OFF

[KitKatPacificuk]

NGC,

It depends on which Cirrus type and which POH you are talking about regarding speeds etc for the CAPS.

The SR20 is 135kts and the SR22 is 133kts. So ok I got the Seat G wrong by one G, big deal.

NGC you fail to mention the rest of what it says in the POH
You quote:
________________
...make all resonable efforts to slow to the minimum speed possible.
________________
However if time and altitude are critical and/or ground impact is imminent, the CAPS should be activated regardless of speed.

Suggect you read all of it and not just what you want to hear.

Also NGC quoted from the POH
___________
WARNING. Deployment is expected to result in the loss of the airframe.
__________
Well seen as they have rebuilt ones that have had the chute deployed, the POH must be wrong then? Yes or No? or just a guide line?

The SR20 is certified by EASA. There are many registered in Germany and Bose-x is right there is a G- reg one in Turweston G-OPSS.

The SR20 is the same as the SR22 with no spin recovery, but that got certified. The SR22 will be certified shortly.

Being current in spinning I think is important. Just because you fly an airplane that has a spin recovery, doesn't mean you are any safer than one that doesn't if you are not current.

The CAPS is not just for recovering from a spin remember. Structural failure, Loss of control, Engine failure over mountains or water where a safe landing cannot be made, mid air collision and pilot incapacitation are also very good reason for pulling the chute.

Welcome to the 21st Century,

By the way NGC, you don't work for the CAA do you. If not, it sure sounds like it!:8

[Sheilanagig]

Deice.

You state:

never knew for a fact the Cirrus couldn't recover from a spin.
Is it a fact or just speculation?

As NGIC states – A FACT, I am afraid. The chute is allegedly the remedy for this defect.
In fact the story as I heard it was that Cirrus management imposed the chute over the heads of the design and flight testing departments at Cirrus resulting in a lot of acrimony, but the real surprise was when the FAA certified the thing (another story here but PPRUNE moderator wouldn’t appreciate it).


The POH is all over the shop when it comes to deployment of the chute. There is heaps of contradictory advise. But it clearly states straight and level for deployment. Now, that in my mind will rule out the spin and the mid-air and the loss of control, all of which are advocated on the same page. To the discerning reader it should set off alarm bells, if the test pilots cannot write the deployment chapter without getting themselves into a muddle…what chance do we have?

KIT there is a thread running through your posts,…. Stupidity. Stop now before you cause yourself or your company any more embarrassment. I notice you have quite high hours on type(s) despite only being loosely familiar with the POH. I sincerely hope you have nothing to do with the Cirrus differences training people, their reputation is shoddy enough already.

[englishal]

There is heaps of contradictory advise. But it clearly states straight and level for deployment.
Isn't that just to cover their behind?

I read this morning about a guy in trouble over mountainous terrain in North America who was clearly not "wings level". He pulled the chute and everyone walked away.

Whether a Cirrus does or does not recover from a spin is another matter. The aircraft I fly is "not approved for spins" so I guess you could say that that aircraft may or may not recover from a spin as well. At least in the Cirrus you have an option.....

[Ultralights]

its a proven fact, Analogue Intruments can be read faster and easier than digital readouts.

you can tell your airspeed just by a very quick glance at where the needle is pointed! or even watch it in your peripheral vision!

the same reason racing cars of all types dont have digital tacho's! (some have digital representations of analogue guages)

whereas a digital readout requires your eyes to focus on the number, then your brain to comprehend what your eyes are saying. ahh but what about the coloured tape i hear you say, sure, but what speed is Green?

as for Glass, i accept them, but dont feel they are necessary for the majority of flight we do. i get along fine with my hand held $150 GPS, ASI, AH, VSI and compass. (at 120Kts, in a twin :ok: )

I feel the ever increasing features of a Glass setup are taking away from the old fashined skills of PLANNING!!

BRS. interesting stuff, yes, i would fly with one, but only as a last resort something serious like structural failure. MOST engine failures are survivable and dont result in a loss of the airframe. another little interesting fact, The nuber of crashes resulting from an engine failure in a Twin is the same as the number of crashes from engine failure in Singles!!!!!!!! so is the extra engine really worth it?

the only cases i would consider pulling the BRS... Pilot incapacitation, eg, birdstrike into cabin and face. and brief PAX on its use should i have a heart attack or similar.
..... structural failure, eg loss of wing, or anything resulting in Total loss of control, remember, Ejector seats are only to be used in the wings level attitude! yet we see many incidents where ejector seats have been safely used at almost all attitudes
if im inverted, and loose a wing, Im pulling the chute! Physics hopefully will ensure i impact the earth the right way up.
as for pulling the chute for an engine failure! it would have to be over extreme terrain! or unseen terrain at night when the map indicates im over heavy terrain and vegetation (remember planning!)

[ThePirateKing]

Is it really a proven fact that the Cirrus can't recover from a spin? My understanding is that it was never tested, since it has the BRS. I don't think anybody knows for sure if it can be recovered, and if so how.

Regarding midairs, wings-level, etc. If I had a mid-air in a PA28, or (as happened recently to a Cirrus) one of the ailerons dislodged resulting in uncontrolled flight, what options would I have? Precisely none. In the Cirrus, I know for sure I'd rather take the chance and pull the chute (even though I might be outside the POH envelope for doing so) and have some kind of chance of surviving. For sure, I'm not making the odds any longer.

Others have mentioned writing off the airframe. So what? That's what insurance is for. In the situation above you would definately write off your PA28, and I expect you'd be a pretty bloody mess inside it. With the Cirrus, the chute may or may not deploy correctly. If not, you're still dead. If it does however, your chances of survival just got a whole lot better. Airframe written off? Who cares! And even then, as others have pointed out, several of the Cirrus's that have recently deployed the chute have been rebuilt and are flying again.

Rgds,

TPK:ok:

[deice]

----------
quote: As NGIC states – A FACT, I am afraid. The chute is allegedly the remedy for this defect.
----------

The words FACT and Allegedly don't work well in the same sentence. Where do your FACTs come from and why is the chute only Allegedly the solution?

Further you state "The story as I heard it..." implying you also have been told about something by someone who perhaps believes something or heard it from someone. :suspect:

The question remains unanswered.

[dublinpilot]

If glass instruments were really less safe than analogue, then would Mr Boeing & Mr Airbus still be fitting them to their vehicles?

I suspect that it's a case of whichever you are more used to using, you are safer with.

However, when people talk about the benefits of the Cirrus glass cockpit, I suspect they are really refering to the other panel. The GPS, moving map, terrain, with traffic, and weather all on the one screen. No need to spend time trying to pull all the different sources of info together to see the bigger picture; the electronics has already done that for you, and it's sitting there in glorious colour.

As for the BRS, I really don't see the downside. It doesn't take any options away, just adds another one.

Does the lack of proven spin recovery bother me? Well the arrow I fly, isn't approved for intendional spins, so obviously it doesn't bother me, nor all the other Arrow pilots.

Would I fly a Cirrus? I'd gladly trade a couple of toes for an hours flight in one!

dp

[SR20flyDoc]

@Sheilanagis

The POH is all over the shop when it comes to deployment of the chute. There is heaps of contradictory advise. But it clearly states straight and level for deployment. Now, that in my mind will rule out the spin and the mid-air and the loss of control, all of which are advocated on the same page. To the discerning reader it should set off alarm bells.....


Also below 135 knots, engine should be stopped asap etc.
Next POH revision will maybe also add 'VFR ONLY"

It already states; 'USE OF THIS DEVICE COULD RESULT IN INJURY OR DEATH

Did it save lives, absolutely :D So is this lawyer talk, afirm.

I'm always glad to tak my Cirrus up in the sky with a safety option every other certified plane lacks...

[MLS-12D]

There is a wonderful passage on the attraction of risk in the early part of Nevil Shute Norway's autobiography, Slide Rule (concerning one of his schoolmasters who enjoyed ocean racing in small yachts).Here it is (p.11):

"If I have learned one thing in my fifty-four years, it is that it is very good for the character to engage in sports which put your life in danger from time to time. It breads a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities which probably cannot be got in any other way, and a habit of quick decisions".

its a proven fact, Analogue Intruments can be read faster and easier than digital readouts. Internationally-respected pilot-author Bob Buck makes this point at some length in his 1975 book Flying Know-How (pp.88-90).

Would I fly a Cirrus? I'd gladly trade a couple of toes for an hours flight in one!And I thought I was mad keen on flying! :eek:

[deice]

I flew Stockholm-Dusseldorf-Stockholm (1300 nm) last Sunday and afterwards contemplated my options. The Commander is safe, easy (autopilot does everything) and comfortable.
But the southern part of Sweden has forrest all over the place and it was pitch black as I made my way home.
My options following engine failure or a similar emergency had been crash in woods or lucky landing on a field or street. With a chute I would have had one more option.

Some might argue that a twin would have been safer, but then I would never have made the trip - too costly, so, yes indeed it is alot safer to fly twins...

Wish I had the chute!

[IO540]

The BRS chute is rocket-assisted. Of course it will come out; the aircraft doesn't have to be level. Even with a wing missing, it won't be descending completely upside down. The heavy bit is still in the front. The system has been tested umpteen times in U.S. Exp Cat aircraft.

Come on everybody, stop feeding this daft thread about glass cockpits and BRS chutes making flying more dangerous.

It would be as valid (and definitely true) that pilots would be a lot more careful if they had a hand grenade tied to their chest, with the trigger wired into the stall switch. But would that represent progress?

[Fuji Abound]

I haven’t read the whole this thread but I get the impression there is a fair amount of conjecture and some very strong pro and anti Cirrius lobbies. I have to say I haven’t entirely got to grips with why there appears to be such strong lobbying in each direction unless the lobbyists have a vested interested in their positions. I wonder?

That said it seems to me Cirrius have tried to develop an aircraft that takes on board some of the recent developments in airframe design, safety and avionics. In my opinion that is desperately needed in GA unless we truly believe no innovation has taken place in these fields in the last 30 years or so!

Inevitably some of these innovation may fall by the way side.

However I feel it should also not be forgotten the Cirrius is in GA terms a very high performance aircraft and an aircraft of which there are already a fair number in circulation. There was a good article in American Flying recently talking about the dangers of low hour pilots flying high performance aircraft such as the Cirrius whilst pointing out that in the past this would have proved difficult because a. there weren’t any (many) high performance singles and b. the insurance companies effectively prevented low hour pilots flying high performance twins by imposing tough restrictions. Cirrius has in theory both tempted and enabled relatively low hour pilots to own a very high performance aircraft. Furthermore as the number of aircraft being operate increase to a sizeable population more incidents are going to appear to be occurring. It would seem to be very dangerous to jump to some of the conclusions that are being reached without a proper statistical analysis.

Finally, in my opinion the facts remain that if you are going to use light singles in certain ways (and I accept whether or not you should is altogether another debate) there are a range of circumstances when an engine failure or other flight threatening event is likely to have an unhealthy outcome. I would include in these flight in IMC with a low cloud base, flight at night, flight over rough (and cold) water, icing, pilot incapacity, structural failure and flight over inhospitable terrain. In all of these circumstances the ballistic chute would seem to increase the chances of surviving without any significant penalty and that would seem to be a good thing.

[KitKatPacificuk]

Hehehe

All very amusing.

No idea!

[S-Works]

KKP, please feel free to share your incitefull wizdom with us as it seems we will no doubt learn from the excercise.

I assume that you flew an SR22, pulled the chute and were killed in the ensuing crash?

"what do you mean I have to die before we can have a common reference"....... bones

[MLS-12D]

I get the impression there is a fair amount of conjecture and some very strong pro and anti Cirrius lobbies. I have to say I haven’t entirely got to grips with why there appears to be such strong lobbying in each direction unless the lobbyists have a vested interested in their positions. I wonder?It beats me. :confused:

Personally, the Cirrus is the antithesis of what I like in an airplane; but if other people like it and want to fly it, why not?

If there is some genuine belief that the design is inherently unsafe and that public safety demands all of the aircraft be grounded, the appropriate thing to do would be to communicate with the FAA, JAA, etc.; otherwise, let's all respect each others' right to choose airplanes based upon our own preferences.

the Cirrius is in GA terms a very high performance aircraft... Cirrius has in theory both tempted and enabled relatively low hour pilots to own a very high performance aircraft. Ummm ... maybe. Obviously performance is relative, but the Cirrus is not exactly an F4U Corsair or a C46 Commando. All of the Cirrus are fixed-gear, tricycle airplanes with mid-sized Continental engines. Although they have constant speed airscrews, the design includes an automatic pitch control tied to the throttle. The cruise speeds are faster than spam cans, but the stall speed is only 54 kts.

I don't claim to have any real knowledge of the aircraft, but there seems no obvious reason why it would not be well within the capability of any reasonably current PPL - even someone without bags of experience - provided only that some appropriate conversion training was undertaken.

[Fuji Abound]

"Ummm ... maybe. Obviously performance is relative, but the Cirrus is not exactly an F4U Corsair or a C46 Commando. All of the Cirrus are fixed-gear, tricycle airplanes with mid-sized Continental engines. Although they have constant speed airscrews, the design includes an automatic pitch control tied to the throttle. The cruise speeds are faster than spam cans, but the stall speed is only 54 kts."

I agree stall speed is a factor as is undercarriage. Oher factors are speed (the cirrius is significantly faster than most GA types) which means low time pilots are inclined to get behind the aircraft. Instrumentation (the glass cockpit is significantly different from the vast majority of GA types) which means low hour pilots can rely on the autopilot and lag well behind the information available, airframe (which in GA terms is "slippery") requiring the pilot again to stay ahead of the aircraft.

Everything is relative and the Cirrius may not be a C46 Commando BUT then again compare the Cirrius with the VAST majority of the GA fleet on which most low hour pilots have trained and of which they have experience. Which ever way you look at it the Cirrius IS a significant step up. Of course with adequate conversion training the Cirrius is within the capability of most GA pilots and so is an Airbus. Adequate is of course the key.

Of the accidents that have happened I would suggest it requires very careful anaylsis of the post accident reports to identify why the accident occured and what could have been done to prevent it. I have not done that analysis and nor have I seen much really informed comment here.

[Ultralights]

If glass instruments were really less safe than analogue, then would Mr Boeing & Mr Airbus still be fitting them to their vehicles?

whan was the last time a Boeing/ Airbus flown Visually with Hands on? (tongue firmly in cheek):}

[deice]

A quick look at the fatal accidents listed for SR20/22 on the NTSBs page indicates pilots had more than 250 hrs total time and up to 1400+ hrs.
With that "experience" you should be able to cope with a Mooney, C210, Saratoga etc let alone the down-and-welded, single-power-lever SR series.
Interestingly almost half of these accident pilots seem to have impaired vision requiring glasses.
I doubt they had glass cockpits (PFDs) so that shouldn't be a factor. Also, the cruise performance does not seem to have anything to do with it.

One report indicated stall practice with a spin to the ground, the others were collision with high terrain, low terrain (landing phase) and just plain terrain, in some cases in low visibility/ceilings.
From my scientific study there seems to be nothing exceptional about these crashes. Pilots fly into ground regularly (preferrably at airports with the intent of landing) in all kinds of aircraft. Usually in the accidents there's a combination of VFR-pilot, mountain, low visibility, low ceiling and perhaps less than ideal judgement. Hardly any aircrafts fault. Suggesting that the Cirrus is too hot for low time pilots seems to have no bearing on the fatal accidents.

How many peoples lives have been claimed by spin-approved PA38s (Tomahawk)?

[tinpis]

Mostly its cheque- books that kill inexperienced private pilots.