Cirrus 22 Crash - 1 Dead. Crisis. [Archive]

Confabulous

8th Feb 2005, 13:19

This Cirrus bashing is getting ridiculous to say the least. If you go outside the POH, you are officially a test pilot, since you're trying something experimental. GA pilots are in general (except for Genghis and a few others) are not qualified test pilots, and if they push the envelope will get bitten - hard.

Every accident related to the Cirrus so far has been human factor or engine related - CFIT's, bad judgement, engine failure etc.

DP has a good point - a Cessna or Piper would drill a big hole in the ground just as neatly, and with less of a struggle too.

Most Cirri have the TKS icing system, but the icing could have overpowered this, or maybe it just ran out - or maybe it just wasn't switched on.

Chances are if the BRS was deployed at too high a speed it would seriously damage the fuse structure - and the shock of opening could cause the wings to fail negative if it was excessive - not that it would matter, chances are the aircraft would snap in two. All depends on how the loads are being applied. But they would really have to be going fast for that to happen.

Fuji Abound

8th Feb 2005, 14:08

We have been warned, there are no excuses.

These repetitve posts about accidents involving Cirrus are getting boring to say the least. What is you point!!

We should all learn from accidents if we can and if these accidents point to a problem with a particular aircraft type then we want to know. However you present no evidence what so ever. On the whole comments on this site are well informed, considered and can be substantiated. If there is an identifiable problem with Cirrus say so and justify your comment if not apply for a job as a reporter and write shock horror stories for an appropriate newspaper:rolleyes:

We are sorry to hear of the crash and if icing was the cause it re-enforces this risk.

bar shaker

8th Feb 2005, 14:13

Confabulous

I agree with you and I think we only hear about these as its the new aircraft on the scene.

However, one thing I have wondered about the fatalities...

Does the provision of a BRS create a false sense of security, leading the pilots into dangerous situations that they would have otherwise avoided?

Sheilanagig

8th Feb 2005, 14:34

Vino. Er yes it is actually..although fussy is a technical term I would not have used myself. High performance wings actually suffer worse that others - recent Challenger crash at Aspen is an example - but dont get me wrong here, ice on any wing is BAD, but take a high peformance wing and add in dodgy stall issues (SR22) and throw ice in on top and then we really are into testpilot land

Michael 59. Good question.
I have spoken to many Cirrus owners and opinions are varied. You may be lucky and it might rip off,... or it may act as the worlds biggest drag chute in which case you are in the deepest doodoo..actually horrific to think about.

Dub guy. Now I wouldnt say the Ford Mondeo is a dangerous car, but remember the Ford Pinto. Dangerous yes. Its a fact some products Cars, Aircraft, Medicine, you name it, are more dangerous than others. a good clue is to go to the NTSB website and find out which types are MORE dangerous than others. The SR22 is currently running at 3 times the mean of its nearest rival in the 'dangerous' stakes.

Con.

The same Con that told us before in a previous thread that the cirrus was JAR certified.

"Most Cirri have the TKS icing system, but the icing could have overpowered this, or maybe it just ran out - or maybe it just wasn't switched on." TRUE I agree completely.

"Chances are if the BRS was deployed at too high a speed it would seriously damage the fuse structure - and the shock of opening could cause the wings to fail negative if it was excessive " TRUE . Perhaps you might pass this info to KITKAT who (depite his 600+ hours on type) has stated previously that the "CAPS can be deployed at any spped".

Guys. It all about the WING.

I will be suprised if Cirrus dont radically redesign within the next year.

valenii

8th Feb 2005, 14:37

Does the provision of a BRS create a false sense of security, leading the pilots into dangerous situations that they would have otherwise avoided?

That is an easy question to answer.

Every Cirrus pilot I know is a pilot first and a Cirrus Pilot second.

The Cirrus aircraft does provide better situational awareness, better single pilot workload due to excellent aircraft automation, better flying characteristics, completely predicatable flight envelope and better comfort. All of which can lead a safe pilot to fly safer. However there is nothing to protect the aircraft from a reckless pilot or a pilot flying outside of the published limits or his own ability.

This accident probably could have been prevented if the pilot had taken the CAPS option earlier, therefore if there is anything that makes the Cirrus dangerous its traditionalists trying to recover aircraft from emergencies without using all available safety features.

This guy should have pulled the chute earlier, at FL160 his IAS would have been below the max demonstrated CAPS deployment speed even before he started picking up ice. My guess is he lost control trying to execute an emergency decent in an iced up aircraft. Since he was over mountains, he should have pulled the chute at the first indication that the aircraft had "departed from controled flight".

I cannot understand was motivates people to bash a new design of aircraft.

I will make an offer here: If anyone in the UK is in anyway sceptical about the design of the Cirrus, and is privately or publically bad mouthing what I believe is the biggest step forward in GA for 30 years, they can contact me and I will give them an hour or so hands on in one with me sitting beside them, and they can then make their comments from a position of experirnce rather than speculation.

No strings attatched. I will say nothing except to guide them through the check list, keep them safe and make sure they land properly.

I await the call 07967965298

The SR22 is currently running at 3 times the mean of its nearest rival in the \'dangerous\' stakes.

Actually, it depends what figures you look at.

If you compare accidents just in new top of the range Cessnas singles, sold over the same period as the SR22 has been available, and adjusted for fleet size, the SR22 is twice as safe as the Cessna.

This is a sensible comparison, as we are dealing with the same kind of pilots (looking for a new high performance aircraft, and typically buying them for similar reasons) and the same preiod of time.

Ian

Vino Collapso

8th Feb 2005, 14:59

Evo

8th Feb 2005, 15:09

I will make an offer here: If anyone in the UK is in anyway sceptical about the design of the Cirrus, and is privately or publically bad mouthing what I believe is the biggest step forward in GA for 30 years, they can contact me and I will give them an hour or so hands on in one with me sitting beside them, and they can then make their comments from a position of experirnce rather than speculation.

Ian, with an offer like that I'm almost tempted to start bad-mouthing it so that I qualify... ;)

Sheilanagig

8th Feb 2005, 15:09

Vino.

I have (and do) fly in a SR22 which I (mea culpa) in a moment of pure lazyness recommended about two years ago to a PPL that approached me for advise, after minimal research and buying the CAPS PR (mea maxima culpa).

I unlike you ,AM a fan of the technology, provided the training is sufficient. Its what I fly (most) all of the time.

But your main point is absolutely correct ,stay out of icing in any aircraft that is not certified for such, - other aircraft may scare you this one will kill.

deice

8th Feb 2005, 15:11

Be surprised! They won't redesign the wing. I'd wager a cold one on that.
What's the point speculating on an accident where we don't really know what happened and why. The NTSB will issue their professional opinion so that we may learn from it.

If you have a personal preference to Piper and Cessna aircraft designed in 1950, please keep flying them.

Let those who believe there has been some progress since, enjoy the new stuff. You may be aware people get killed in other brands as well, regardless of their 50-year history. Sometimes it doesn't have anything to do with the aircraft.

Icing conditions, as any pilot knows, is very bad indeed. Aircraft sporting boots, heated leading edges and TKS icing all suffer from the same problem. If you can't get rid of the ice, you go down, fast. I'm sure the TKS deice system on the Cirrus fleet is intended to aid your escape from icing conditions, just like on any other aircraft.

Doesn't help if you're in a Caravan, ATR-42, B737 or SR-22.

Sheilanagig

8th Feb 2005, 15:30

Deice.

"........just like on any other aircraft.

Doesn't help if you're in a Caravan, ATR-42, B737 or SR-22."

Now which 737 would that be?

Genghis the Engineer

8th Feb 2005, 15:45

I've been noting the discussion going on about the Cirrus aircraft with interest. I've never flown one, nor worked knowingly for any company with a commercial interest in the aircraft - so I'm both as disinterested and uninformed as it's possible to be whilst remaining a professionally interested aviation professional

Starting with the NTSB database, I can find quite a few reports of fatal accidents. These are:-

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL04FA096&rpt=p
(preliminary report into SR20 N8157J, from limited eyewitness accounts, appears to have spun in without chute operation).

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI04FA255&rpt=p
(preliminary report into SR22 N1223S, insufficient evidence to come to any conclusions at-all)

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA05FA023&rpt=p
(preliminary report into SR22 N1159C, again from limited evidence, appears to have been a LOC at low level during low-speed manoeuvring, possibly associated with a flap mechanism failure).

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05FA032&rpt=p
(Preliminary report into SR22 N889JB, appears to be CFIT in IMC)

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA05FA038&rpt=p
(Preliminary report into SR22 N6057M, appears to be CFIT in IMC)

On October 12, 2003, at 1105 coordinated SR-22, N100BR crashed in Spain, the report doesn't seem to be available in English.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX03FA072&rpt=fi
(Full report into SR20 N893MK, appears to have flown into powerlines after deviation from an IMC approach procedure, probably due to pilot being confused by ATC).

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI03FA057&rpt=fa
(Full report into SR22 N9523P, low hour pilot in marginal VMC at low level, CFIT)

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW03FA029&rpt=fa
(Full report into SR20 N566T, non-IR pilot, strayed into IMC, CFIT)

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC02FA089&rpt=fa
(Full report into SR22 N837CD, stall/spin, failure to recover or operate chute - some suspicion that chute may have malfunctioned)

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW02FA162&rpt=fa
(Full report into SR20 N901CD, CFIT in VMC due to rising ground and high density altitude)

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX01FA145&rpt=fa
(Full report into SR20 N116CD, CFIT during inadvertent IMC, chute apparently not deployed, nor any attempt made)

This is superficial, so I'll make a superficial analysis and by all means anybody argue with me.

(1) The majority of these accidents involve pilots pressing on into conditions for which they at-least were unsuited.

I'm going to be controversial here, but this does look remarkably similar to the trend we saw in the UK a few years ago with privately owned light helicopters often suffering not dissimilar accidents. It was never published as such, but commonly believed that the comfortable environment of the cockpit, and the "I am infallible" attitude of many people who could afford to run a private helicopter (young successful businessmen / media people in large part) tended to lead to considerable over-confidence. Could this be common to the Cirrus?

(2) There are a smaller number of accidents with a definite tendency towards stall / spin.

It was quite controversial during the approval of the Cirrus that the use of the BRS allowed them to avoid showing compliance with the part 23 requirements to demonstrate a spinning assessment. It's interesting that these stall-spin accidents are happening (well, stalls happen to most light aircraft sooner or later), but a proportion of pilots don't seem to be pulling the handle. Why?, no idea - confidence?, lack of trust?, lack of familiarity?

It does beg the question of how good the stall warning and stall characteristics are. Not having flown the type, I can only ask this question not answer it.

But, there are no structural failures, and no losses of control (beyond stall/spin) leading to a fatality. So, it doesn't look like a deeply dangerous aeroplane from the evidence there - just one in which two areas need to be matters for significant pilot caution.

A superficial analysis, by all means shoot it down :D

G

Vino Collapso

8th Feb 2005, 16:28

A superficial analysis, by all means shoot it down

No shots being fired by me :hmm:

I will bet good beer money on the POH being amended to give more warning on stall/spin characteristics and clarification on parachute deployment.

R

Vino

Confabulous

8th Feb 2005, 16:28

Thanks Genghis, we can always rely on you to bring a large measure of objectivity and fact to the proceedings. Very interesting reading!

The same Con that told us before in a previous thread that the cirrus was JAR certified.

The Cirrus SR20 is JAR certificated. The SR22 is undergoing certification. Spins will be prohibited.

It's aerodynamically impossible to spin an aircraft without stalling it first. Cirri follow the same rules of physics - if there is a stall/spin accident it is down to mishandling or misconfiguring the aircraft.

My theory - for what it's worth - is that the glass cockpit is giving a few pilots a newfound sense of bravery - they think the aircraft is foolproof, so they head into conditions they wouldn't take a steam guage equipped model. And they die.

With regards to the BRS - my gut feeling is that they might think it's a bit of a cheat to float out of danger. Humans aren't known for being logical under intense pressure unless they're very highly trained - military/test/airline pilots are a good example of how well trained you need to be to THINK in a spin, in IFR, with wing icing and terrain coming up to meet you. I've no idea how I would react in that situation - if I would react at all.

The SR20 and -22 have the same 'laminar flow' aerofoil - have there been as many stall/spin accidents in the SR20's? No. So that's the 'unsafe wing design' theory down the drain.

Bottom line: The SR22 is NOT an A320... there's no alpha floor (stall protection) function, it's responsive, and if you do the wrong thing at the wrong time, you'll probably die in it, as in any other aircraft.

Confab

PS:

Deice's comment about the 737 probably relates to 2 icing-related crashes - the rudder servo froze at high altitude and the aircraft experienced an uncommanded 'rudder hardover' - the rudder locked fully over in flight and the aircraft hit the ground vertically at 500kts.

dublinpilot

8th Feb 2005, 16:32

Valenii,

Would you extend the offer to those of us who are supporting the Cirrus? :O

If you are ever over in Ireland, I'd love to take you up on that offer. Even if it's just to have a look around airplane while on the ground, I'd be thrilled!

I'll pm you my phone number, and maybe you'd keep it, and let me know if you are ever this way?

Thank you
dp

Confabulous

8th Feb 2005, 18:53

Count me in too Valenii... you can zoom over to Dublin/Weston anytime, we'll give you a warm welcome :O :E

Genghis the Engineer

8th Feb 2005, 19:32

It's aerodynamically impossible to spin an aircraft without stalling it first. Cirri follow the same rules of physics - if there is a stall/spin accident it is down to mishandling or misconfiguring the aircraft
I'd slightly take issue with that statement. Whilst the spin is certainly a post-stall manoeuvre, in many aircraft it is much easier to cause a spin by inputting a yaw or roll input before the stall event than afterwards.

Out of interest, is anybody in a position to post the wording from the POH on the stall, incipient spin and stall recovery?

G

Confabulous

8th Feb 2005, 19:37

Genghis,

Can't cut and paste from the online SR22 POH, but here's the link:

SR22 POH (http://www.cirrusdesign.com/servicecenters/TechPubs/pdf/POH/sr22/pdf/20880-001%20Info%20Manual.pdf)

Right click on the link above and select 'Save Target As'... I find it's the best way.

Confab

stiknruda

8th Feb 2005, 19:42

Ghengis wrote I'd slightly take issue with that statement. Whilst the spin is certainly a post-stall manoeuvre, in many aircraft it is much easier to cause a spin by inputting a yaw or roll input before the stall event than afterwards.

I certainly agree with that, but if the aircraft is always in balance then spinning is impossible as I guess Confabulous really meant.

I have no views either way on the Cirrus, except to think that they look pretty cool - how subjective is that!

I have watched one land quite a few times and the approach speed does seem very high, but that is probably down to pilot technique rather than the very arbitrary 1.3x1Gstall. Id id ask the owner why he approached at over 80 mph and he did say that it was to avoid a stall.

As a current aerobatic pilot, I'd certainly be very interested to go fly and stall one!

Stik

Big Hilly

8th Feb 2005, 20:34

As a current aerobatic pilot, I'd certainly be very interested to go fly and stall one! Maybe this is the crux of the issue? No disrespect whatsoever to Stik here (his reputation as a genuinely superb pilot needs no further acknowledgement) BUT, maybe the issue is simply at what point do you decide to ‘pull the chute’? Imagine the scenario, you stall, then you find yourself in a spin. . . you’ve done this a million times before. . . you know you can recover. . . just a little longer. . . nearly there, no point in wrecking my nice shiny new plane yet by pulling the handle. . . she’ll pull out. . . oh sssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. . . . . .

I’m not saying it’s the case but it could be a possibility that people who should be pulling the handle at the first sign of trouble are maybe hanging on just a little bit too long to see if it’ll pull out.

Having said that, I’ve never flown one but I must say, they look as sexy as hell, have all the right figures in the right places and if I had the cash I’d jump at one.

BH

High Wing Drifter

8th Feb 2005, 21:45

I'd slightly take issue with that statement. Whilst the spin is certainly a post-stall manoeuvre, in many aircraft it is much easier to cause a spin by inputting a yaw or roll input before the stall event than afterwards.
If I may take us further along this tangent: That's interesting. All the theory material I have read has effectively stated "No stall - no spin". Why is this?

Genghis the Engineer

8th Feb 2005, 22:15

There are two stalls here.

The first is the piloting stall, or stall event - that is the point at which you say "oh sh1t I'd really better do something about this", which is when the aircraft either starts to do something you didn't ask of it, or stops doing what you did ask.

The second is the aerodynamic stall, at which the flow has broken up over the wing.

Let's say that a particular aeroplane hits the stall event at 50 knots. But, whilst decelerating and at about 55 knots you put in a bootfull of rudder. The consequence of this is that one wing sees a transient higher airspeed (the left wing if you put in right rudder), and the other sees a transient lower airspeed (the right wing if you put in right rudder). So, suddenly you have one aerodynamically stalled wing, and one unstalled wing - this kicks off the spin.

But, you've done this without slowing steadily down to the 50 knot stall speed at which (to pick a common example) the aeroplane pitches nose down in it's stall event.

So, yes the wing is stalled (at-least one wing anyhow, whether they both are depends upon the characteristics of that aircraft in the spin), no the aeroplane has not been through what you as a pilot would necessarily recognise as "the stall".

G

Confabulous

8th Feb 2005, 22:15

at what point do you decide to ‘pull the chute’? Imagine the scenario, you stall, then you find yourself in a spin. . . you’ve done this a million times before. . . you know you can recover. . . just a little longer. . . nearly there, no point in wrecking my nice shiny new plane yet by pulling the handle. . . she’ll pull out. . . oh sssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. . . . . .

That is definitely the crux of the problem here. A lot of accident CVRs have 'Oh ****' as the last intelligible sentence... because they didn't have any more options - if an airliner goes down nowadays it's almost certainly because of a hardware fault.

Imagine if a an airliner had a reliable BRS system... you can be certain that if there was any severe malfunction (flight control/engine failure/weather) the handle would be pulled as per the memory items.

Cue 20 minor injuries instead of 100 fatalities.

After reading 'The Killing Zone' (Paul Craig), combined with Langeweische and the NASA ASR & NTSB reports, I get the impression that what separates an accident from a safe flight is knowing the aircraft's limits and the pilot knowing his limits - and one more vital ingredient - not making assumptions.

Personally I think that every student pilot should be required to pore over the abovementioned reports - because they need something to compare with what they're doing. We need definite information about what to do and what not to do - essentially a mental checklist - but we're not provided with that. Training in Europe and the US is generally excellent, but in my limited experience I've seen some very worrying things from flight instructor while I've been on a trial flight.

Example: First trial flight, an Aerobat, instructor asks me if I have a weak stomach. I say no, and he suggested some aerobatics. Naturally I say yes (come on, I'm only human). Only after the flight I find out that he's not aerobatics rated - he kept wondering why we ended each roll 30 degrees nose down heading towards Vne at max throttle. He forgot to pitch up before he started rolling.

Then he suggested a bit of cloud flying - until I pointed out the tumbled artificial horizon.

Then we ended up at 30ft above a bog doing 110kts. Technically legal I know since there was no-one around - but it didn't really inspire me to be safe.

Essentially - it's discipline that marks out the professionals from the amateurs (PPL or ATPL, I'm not discriminating). The accident reports tell us that if you're not rated or qualified to do something - resist the temptation to become an accident report.

Everyone on this forum takes in everything on it - we share information and experiences -and we LEARN... REALLY LEARN... what it is we really need to concentrate on. I've learned so much since becoming a PPRuNer it defies the imagination but here's what I've learned:

1. Always double check everything. Then check it again.

2. Know the aircraft inside & out, systems, POH, engine. No surprise is a good surprise in the air.

3. Never assume anything.

4. Make the abnormal situation reactions instinctive - practise them again and again, not in the air but in the cockpit on the ground - don't even need to have the engine running - visualise what you would do in various abnormal situations. Do it at home if you want.

5. Read every accident/incident report you can lay your hands on, the ASR reports, Langeweische's 'Stick & Rudder', PPRuNe etc.... but form your own opinions as well - nothing worse then doing a real forced landing because you ASSUMED something was correct - from filling the tanks to checking the tyres.

I'll stick by these myself but I'm always willing to learn!

Getting back to the original point :ugh: :rolleyes: when do we pull the handle? That's up to us, but if you're mentally running through the emergency checklists and come to the end, PULL THE FECKING HANDLE!!!

Fortunately in Private Flying we have a very reliable BRL system ;) :p (Sorry, couldn't help myself)

PS: Genghis, very true - that way you get the stall/spin without the warning - and probably at low altitude too.

Genghis the Engineer

9th Feb 2005, 06:56

Some interesting points from the SR22 POH that Confabulous was good enough to post.

(1) Minimum operating height is 920 ft. That is not a "last chance" height, that will require a degree of pre-briefing and discipline.

(2) Maximum operating speed is 133kn, this is considerably below the Vne of 201kn, and only a little above the climb speed of 110-120kn. Now clearly the primary reason of the BRS in this aircraft is to avoid spin certification - but it may be lost on some people that in this aircraft, the chute is going to do no good whatsoever in the case of a high speed departure - the high speed snatch loads will almost certainly rip it off, and may well take some aeroplane with them!

Knowing that the majority of GA pilots seem to regard reading the POH as beneath them, I really wonder how well this is understood by most Cirrus pilots?

It is interesting that the BRS in the Cirrus is clearly not the "whole envelope, get-out-of-gaol-card" that it is in most microlights.

G

Charlie Zulu

9th Feb 2005, 07:52

Valenii,

Would love to go flying in an SR22! :D

Now I have to start bad mouthing it so I qualify...

Charlie Zulu.

Confabulous

9th Feb 2005, 16:08

Another point about the SR22 POH - it recommends 'a steady pull of up to 40 lbs force' (I'm paraphrasing here) to fire the BRS.

But what GA pilot (myself included) would be collected enough to use 'a steady pull' during a spin/loss of situational awareness? Most would probably jerk hard on it - reducing the chances of it firing on the first go. Chances are the pilot would think it wasn't working and would just give up and die - because they made an assumption.

The more I know about this aircraft, more concerned I'm getting. Granted, no-one should be getting near a stall in the first place, but not even spin testing the aircraft - that's a bit of a cop-out, especially when a high-speed BRS deployment would probably, as Genghis surmised, take bits of the aircraft with it.

I was reading the DA40 Star POH a week or so ago (freely available here) (http://http://www.diamond-air.at/support/PDF/DA40-D/HB/AFM/60105e-r3-DA40-D-AFM.pdf)
which says that, although spinning is prohibited, recovery is easy. Very reassuring for a DA40 pilot.

Confab

Genghis the Engineer

9th Feb 2005, 16:15

I must admit, notwithstanding what I'm sure would be enormous commercial pressure, had I been running the cert programme on the Cirrus I think I'd have wanted to run at-least a reduced spin programme and give POH advice along the lines of "in the event of a spin, do this.... If still spinning through 1000ft give up and pull the handle".

That "pull smoothly" instruction is in all of the BRS manuals, and I suspect nobody has ever yet followed it - but the success rate is very high so it wouldn't trouble me greatly.

G

IO540

9th Feb 2005, 18:12

Isn't a rather more basic point being missed?

En-route, nobody except some total cowboy is going to get into a stall or a spin. One is flying at a speed, say 140-160kt, at which this cannot happen.

Unless one is going for some sort of altitude record, in which case the stall speed will rise to meet the max achievable cruise speed and eventually the plane will stall; at that point one could get into a spin either through misuse of the controls or by being in turbulence. But by that time the pilot will have to be on oxygen, well and truly. The U2 used to fly just a few knots above the stall, but the pilots knew about that :O

The only place one might reasonably stall or spin through pilot error is on the base to final turn. There, one has to watch the speed and bank angles very carefully. But, in a typical circuit, a chute won't help because one will be too low especially by the time one has realised things have gone badly wrong.

The really great advantage of the chute is that is enables survival over extreme terrain, forest, anywhere at night, a built-up area, and is bound to help on water too. For me, spins wouldn't come into it at all.

Incidentally, does anybody actually KNOW that the Cirrus cannot be spin recovered? Surely it doesn't differ from other planes that much? It isn't a Long-EZ.

stiknruda

9th Feb 2005, 18:49

BH - I said I'd quite like to stall the aeroplane. Your very kind words do me no justice whatsoever - I am a current aerobatic pilot, not some sky-God or test-pilot wannabe.

I would like to stall the aeroplane so that I can see what speed she stalls at in various configurations - this would then enable me to guesstimate a safe approach speed.

Unless I grossly mishandled the stall, I see no reason why she would spin. As she is of conventional design and not a canard (as mentioned in IO540's latest post (Vari-eze)) then keeping the stall in balance should not be beyond the wit of most PPL studes.

Stik

SR20flyDoc

9th Feb 2005, 18:59

Incidentally, does anybody actually KNOW that the Cirrus cannot be spin recovered? Surely it doesn't differ from other planes that much? It isn't a Long-EZ

/Hear say/ is that the test pilots did a significant number of spins with wit SRxx 's

The spin resistent design of the wing does make it difficult to spin, but when it is in a spin, it is very difficult to get out. It could be done in most cases without pulling the wing chute on the test planes (to counter the rotation), but not all.

/Hear say off/

To do a complete FAA spin program for certification is a totally different thing.

But don't ever try to spin the SRxx :uhoh: It's normal catagory only.

But if the accidental spin is there, you can try to break the spin. But most pilots are not trained for that, so pull the chute immidiately after.

To this date there were no BRS saves after a spin or people who can live to tell (except for test pilots) they were in a spin with an SRxx. I believe that to be the same case for the Lancair Columbia (except for the BRS option)

S.

Big Hilly

9th Feb 2005, 21:46

Stik,

That's exactly my point. You are an experienced aero pilot and are therefore unlikely to screw-up in the stall. But, if it stalls and subsequently spins in less experienced hands or even in your hands, would you be less likely to want to bail out of this nice new aeroplane by pulling the handle straight away, or would you hang-on until it might be too late in the hope that you might be able to sort it out? As I said, I don't know, I'm just putting the idea up for discussion. . .

IO540,

Altitude or even slow speed might not be necessary. 'Chucking it around' at height to 'see how it handles' could do it. . . I display a warbird that in a tight turn has a ‘stall speed’ well into 3 figures. . . Or should I say, I don't get that close to the envelope to find out when flying it in a tight turn. . .

BH

Confabulous

9th Feb 2005, 22:31

Just for reference...

I fed some numbers into X-Plane with the Cirrus flight model to see roughly what the snatch loads would be at deployment on a calm day, max weight, 3000sq ft canopy (about right, since it produced a 1700fpm descent rate).

At 90kts:

Max load: 2.7G

At 130kts:

Max load: 5.8G (very close to limit load + 50%, as per the regs)

At Vne:

Max load: 14.4G

Touchdown loads (max weight, level surface, 1700 fpm: 10.8G (although it's negative G from the wing's perspective)

From the above numbers, the chance of any part of the structure failing at above 130kts is fairly high. During deployment at any speed above 100kts the a/c will pitch up to the vertical.

Confab

Genghis the Engineer

10th Feb 2005, 06:44

I can't speak for X-plane, since I've never used it but would just like to point out that the Cirrus is primarily composite. The regs will require that the structural failure load is roughly 2.25 times limit, not 1.5. So for a 3.8g value of N1, structural failure should occur at around 8.6g.

G

Hansol

10th Feb 2005, 07:25

Whatever the Pro's and Cons of the chute one thing is certain, its deployment does not guarantee survival under any circumstances.

englishal

10th Feb 2005, 09:55

And remembering of course that twins rarely come out of a spin if one is entered, and I don't know of any twins that have a chute, other than a spin arrestor chute which may be used by test pilots. Twin pilots are taught not to enter a spin at all costs (which incidentally is what I try to do in any aircraft, especially as the SEPs I fly are not approved for spins and do not have a parachute!)

And a twin is probably more likely to enter a spin if things go wrong than a Cirrus.

So on the grand scheme of things, I really can't see them being any more "dangerous" than any other sort of aircraft, in fact the safety aspects of the avionics alone would probably outweigh any unusual SEP spin characteristics they *may* have for people who want to fly from A to B, IFR in varying degrees of weather.

I'd love to have a go in one, I saw Angelina Jolies being "test flown" when I was in the states last year, and it is a sexy aircraft :D

soay

10th Feb 2005, 13:45

This JAA document (http://www.cirruspilots.org/uploaded_images/3-105960-Cirrusstall-spinreport.pdf) clarifies the status of spinning versus parachute deployment of Cirrus aircraft. In particular, it explains the spin testing exemption and how to recover from an inadvertant spin.

AlexL

10th Feb 2005, 14:46

I find that JAA article very interesting. I must say that the FAA appear to have a very enlightened attitude and consider Safety, whereas the JAA appear to have a set of requirements to be met and don't really give a hoot wether or not they improve safety.

I thought the stats that only 0.5% of all spin accidents were recoverable (due to altitude) , but that resistance to stall would potentially save about 20% of all accidents, were very interesting.
With that info it seems fairly irrelevent that the cirrus *may* be irrecoverable in the spin, as 99.5% of spins are too low anyway. The fact that the wing design allows roll control deep into the stall seems to be much safer to me, than meeting some notional spin recovery requirements. Having the chute is better than no chute and it should work in the spin. Surely all the previous comments of the chute not working at high speed is irrelevent - if you are in a spin, you must be fairly close to stall speed? or am i missing something here?.
Expecting the chute to be a get out at VNE disoriented in IMC is a bit dumb really is it not, and is not pertinent to the stall / spin discussion.

Lowtimer

10th Feb 2005, 14:55

Having read that document, and the POH, I must say I'd have no qualms flying the aeroplane and would be happy to stall it. If you tried to certify the Chipmunk as a new design today, you'd end up with exactly the same fuss being made... that too often requires FULL forward stick for spin recovery.

Genghis the Engineer

10th Feb 2005, 15:09

that too often requires FULL forward stick for spin recovery.
Which is fine so long as that's what it says in the POH. The concept of the "Standard Spin Recovery" is a myth put about by people who can't read a POH properly, or haven't flown enough types to realise that they aren't all the same.

G

valenii

10th Feb 2005, 16:07

The Cirrus fleet is clocking up hours like no other aircraft type, so its not supprising that the whole of the flight envelope is being explored, probably inadvertantly by pilots that make mistakes.

I know of two en-route stall/spin incidents, resulting from bad weather at high altitude.

One was over heavy convective weather in California. One was over the rocky mountains at night.

In both cases I think the aircraft was flying very high on autopilot and caught in severe downdrafts/mountain waves.

An AP in altitude hold will pitch up when experiencing negative VSI, which at high altitude can cause an aircraft to stall at normal cruise power settings. Torque/Fuel Imbalance/Turbulance/Pilot Panic etc can then make things worse.

In both these cases the pilots pulled the Chute and walked away. The Mountain incident was two adults and two children saved, the california incident was a CFII and his wife.

If they had been in a traditional aircraft design, the AAIB would still be trying to work out what went wrong, and their families would be greaving.

Ian

BTW you can recover from a spin in a Cirrus, but its slightly unconventional, like a chipmunk! However it has not been proved that all spins are recoverable, without pulling the chute (which was tested in an inverted spin)

Confabulous

10th Feb 2005, 19:05

which was tested in an inverted spin
Bloody hell I'd like to see a Cessna get out of an inverted spin without making a crater! I wonder how it got into that spin mode in the first place?

The regs will require that the structural failure load is roughly 2.25 times limit, not 1.5. So for a 3.8g value of N1, structural failure should occur at around 8.6g.
Interesting - wasn't aware of that until now, but it makes a lot of sense.

When assembled, the facts mostly exhonorate the aircraft itself, so what pilots really need more of (in any spin prohibited aircraft) is discipline, plain and simple, is in the areas of energy management, flight planning and contigency management. As it stands I'd be happy to fly a Cirrus - much happier then flying a PA28.

The only thing about the SR22 that may be lacking is the POH - giving only some advice about inadvertant spins is bad, but giving no advice is fatal, although:

Cirrus has reached strong conclusion that any spin recovery guidance in the AFM distracts pilot from immediately activating CAPS system when the aircraft has departed controlled flight.

If the a/c can recover in an emergency, it's probably better to tell us that, as Diamond did with the DA40. Maybe a bit of type specific sim training? I know the sim might have problems with stall/spin aerodynamics (as X-Plane does), but it's far better than nothing.

Everytime an aircraft crashes we benefit from the knowledge gained, so that's why poring over GA/airline accident reports is so critical - it contributes hugely to our overall knowledge and decision making skills.

PS: Where can I test fly Angelina Jolie?? :E :E :E

SR20flyDoc

10th Feb 2005, 20:29

@ Englishal

Angelina Jolie just finished her PPL in her own SR22 , N805MX

S.

IO540

10th Feb 2005, 21:29

The only thing about the SR22 that may be lacking is the POH

I think that if the SR22 was sold in the UK in any volume (which won't happen because there isn't anywhere near enough money floating about in UK GA) there would be a far bigger problem here than they might have in the USA. Here, most instructors wouldn't know how to switch on even the cockpit lights in something like that :O

max roll rate

10th Feb 2005, 22:32

IO540 must be some cash around !
I have seen more new sr22 in the last year than i ever saw new private piper sales with 13 years at oxford , i think 3 delivered this month alone so as i say must be some cash about hehehe

p.s i was flying a new SR22 GTS yesterday and they fly like a dream

Genghis the Engineer

10th Feb 2005, 22:57

Bloody hell I'd like to see a Cessna get out of an inverted spin without making a crater! I wonder how it got into that spin mode in the first place?
Roll inverted, push the stick forward, put in full rudder at about Vs+10kn. I've never inverted spun a Cessna, but from experience on other types I'd expect it to probably be unpleasantly oscillatory, but very quick to recover.

which won't happen because there isn't anywhere near enough money floating about in UK GA)
Some may have noticed my analysis posted recently of new aircraft bought in the UK during 2004. I'm in the process of doing a much deeper analysis covering 2000-2004, 5 years in total.

The analysis isn't complete yet, once it is I'll post it on Pprune somewhere. But, provisionally during that 5 year period there were 145 new-build Robinson R44s sold into the UK, 113 new Europas, 50 R22s, 37 DA40s, 29 Pegasus CT2K, 22 new Cessna 172s, 34 new Piper Archers and Warriors (and one Boeing 747!). There's money out there somewhere, just wish I saw more of it :suspect:

G

Chuck Ellsworth

11th Feb 2005, 01:48

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloody hell I'd like to see a Cessna get out of an inverted spin without making a crater! I wonder how it got into that spin mode in the first place?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roll inverted, push the stick forward, put in full rudder at about Vs+10kn. I've never inverted spun a Cessna, but from experience on other types I'd expect it to probably be unpleasantly oscillatory, but very quick to recover.

.......................................

Good one, that is what the troops need, some simple atraight foward facts in a simple straight foward presentation. :ok:

Chuck

Divergent Phugoid!

11th Feb 2005, 02:06

Hey guys you're all over reacting....

A colleagues son was at a certain flying club/school at Humberside at the weekend and was in conversation with their new CFI who stated quite categorically that icing was not a problem on aircraft. The expense to have a citation or similar de-iced was not worth the risk of icing being a problem... this filtered down to all aircraft!!

How on earth are students expected to learn the safety rules when plonkers like this are giving out recommendations such as this.

HE also hs a different view on spin recovery from the long standing highly qualified instructor, (who also is a qualified aeros pilot and we think instructor aswell) which totally contradicts the rule book for a PA 28.

Dont think this guy knows what he is doing or talking about.

Advised the son to stay clear from the lonely sounding club and go to a more safety orientated one!!

englishal

11th Feb 2005, 07:35

Angelina Jolie just finished her PPL in her own SR22 , N805MX

Rumour has it that Ms Croft will be going through CPL / IR.....and that also the A/C will be based in England (can't say where, though it'd be nice to meet her at Compton Abbas for Lunch)...

Maybe we could arrange a celebrity show-down between her and Madonna (I know who my money would be on:} )

Julian

11th Feb 2005, 08:22

Indeed she has, seen her aircraft and she certainly hasnt skimped on the avionics. But there again probably equivalent of a bus fare to her :D

IO540

11th Feb 2005, 08:44

MRR

I have seen more new sr22 in the last year than i ever saw new private piper sales with 13 years at oxford

I can see that - Piper SEP sales are close to zero now in the UK, very low single figures. I mean, WHO would pay 150-200k for a PA28 Archer? Cessna aren't doing much better.

A and C

11th Feb 2005, 18:34

Having had the chance to look rather closely at the Cirrus I think that it is undoubtedly a step forward in the market but the composite technology somewhat lags that seen from Grob or Extra.

This is also apparent by the factorys ( shall we say) conservative approach to damage repair and shows a lack of experience in this field. If I was running the Cirrus factory I would buy in some one who has a lot of time fixing composite structures to advise them on repair techneques before the insurance rates on the type go sky high and make buying this aircraft unatractive.

My overall opinion is that it is a fine aircraft that lacks the product support that it deserves not because the factory don't want to do the job but because of the lack of practical experience that other aircraft factorys have with composites.

Lowtimer

11th Feb 2005, 19:03

Ghenghis,

If you ever get theopportunity, try invertied spins in the Super Decathlon. Only did it once, in the USA, but it was 12 turns and smooth as silk, a very regular and even pattern once the first three turns had gone by. Instructor flying, not me...

Genghis the Engineer

11th Feb 2005, 19:08

Should the opportunity arise, I certainly shall; there is far too little excitement in my life at present and I could do with some.

Incidentally, I've got to the bottom of that UK registrations analysis, posted it at http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=162953, Interesting how much it varies from what one might have guessed.

G

NeedaJet

11th Feb 2005, 20:22

Back to stalling the Cirrus....

I have stalled (and do so quite regularly as it happens) both the SR20 and the SR22 and have to stress that it really isn't very frightening at all.

I'm not going to wax lyrical about the stall characteristics, but I will say that an average pilot, with average ability and dare I say average proficiency (?) can safely recover from a stall in either of the Cirrus without any problem.

The Cirrus does a lot of things very well (and I really could talk forever about the plus points/advantages of thissuperb machine)....but like ANY aeroplane.... it will turn around and bite you in the ass if you go pushing it beyond its design limits...or it's demonstrated limits....so...DON'T!

My friend Tony says "They're gggrrrreeeaattt!" :ok:

valenii

13th Feb 2005, 21:48

This thread has matured from what seemed like a malicious Cirrus-bashing stunt to a decent discussion of what I believe is the best new GA aircraft design in the last twenty years.

The Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association (COPA) offer specific training called CPPP.

At one of these regulat meetings, the Cirrus training instructors from the factory flew down with a Cirrus and a Lancair (Yes Cirrus have one which was traded in against a new SR22), to demonstrate stalling in different configurations for all the present instructors.

Specifically they did the following:

• Full power coordinated/uncoordinated with and without 50%
flaps
• Power off coordinated/uncoordinated with and without 100%
flaps
• Accelerated 30° bank coordinated/uncoordinated

You can read an informal report made of the post flight discussions here (http://www.cirrus147.com/training/3-127986-StallSeresintheSR22.pdf) (240k pdf)

In all cases I think that we can show that the stall characteristics of this aircraft are better than previous designs.

Ian

Flight Safety

15th Feb 2005, 01:51

Genghis, I created a thread in the Tech Log forum some months back, regarding the spin characteristics of the Cirrus SR20 and SR22. Basically, these aircraft are certified to a new FAA philosophy regarding spins, in that spin avoidance is emphasized at low altitude, rather than traditional spin recovery at higher altitudes. So these aircraft (along with other recently certified GA aircraft) are NOT certified to the same spin recovery standard that your father's airplane was. These new aircraft are not even tested for spin recovery (actually due to their design, they CANNOT be spin tested, as they have no designed in ability to recover).

Here's the link to the thread, and I hope the informative links within still work.

Cirrus SR20/22 - Was this a bad idea? (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142994)

Genghis the Engineer

15th Feb 2005, 20:32

Thanks, I'd missed that one.

As for my father's aircraft - he designed bits of obscure British jet fighters, goodness only knows what the spinning characteristics of the Supermarine Attacker were ! :8

Incidentally, I don't think in a fair number of years of bouncing off the subject, I've ever come across a really useable theory of the spin recovery (i.e. determining how well a particular aircraft will recover from the spin, and under which conditions) - it's one of the great holy grails of aerodynamics so far as I'm personally concerned.

G

Confabulous

16th Feb 2005, 20:17

it's one of the great holy grails of aerodynamics so far as I'm personally concerned.

True enough, it's fascinating even for a distinct non-expert like me. At least one wing not quite stalled, not quite flying, pitching, rolling and yawing simultaneously - can't simulate it properly either (yet). It's one of the few unknowns left in aerodynamics.

And it's fun too! With all the usual caveats applying.

Incidentally, with anyone see the motorglider version of the Ban-bi with those strange end plates with 3 tiny wings stacked one above the other? Apparently it acts as though it doubles the span of the wings - I couldn't find a link to it but it really looks weird, I just wonder how it works... simulated ground effect? Vortex reduction?

Genghis the Engineer

16th Feb 2005, 22:47

The actual spin is reasonably well modelled, I can point you at a few papers on the subject - Yangos and Yangos' paper "Spin: angles and inertial moments" being probably the best. But the recovery now, there's a thing.

I had a go at doing something myself a few years ago, problem is that control power becomes nonlinear at low speeds, which forces you into doing some experimental work. However at that point, there are some obvious and very good reasons not to go applying large control inputs close to the stall, which is what you need to do to try and develop a meaningful model.

The solution is probably to start doing this with a known spinnable aeroplane, better still a few different types, and start building up some data, accepting that you'll enter a few inadvertent spins in the process. The problem is that the time, resources and safety planning behind such a project would be considerable and so-far nobody's been prepared to let me (and I haven't that sort of cash and time spare myself).

G