cirrus sr22

[007helicopter]

Help! Today i solo'd with 43hrs!! Am i a bad pilot ?
Hi folks, today i solo'd with 43hrs instruction under my belt, not really like alot of folks who are proud to solo on their 8th hour instruction etc.. but who cares.

:D

Sternone out of interest you appear to have gone solo for the 1st time in October 2007 after 43 hours and now a couple of years later you say you have "much more than a PPL" would be interested to know what the much more is ??

[flybymike]

Apparently a King Air C90, perhaps with a chauffeur to drive it.

[stepwilk]

Subscribed. I want to see where _this_ goes.

[dont overfil]

Sternone,
So now if it's not a Mooney, Twin Comm, or a C90 it's no use?
What's next? a Challenger? B737BJ?
DO.
Sorry couldn't resist.

[sternone]

Yeah sucks he ? From a 43hour solo'r to a PA39 and King Air owner.

Get a life. I did.

[TWR]

20 days ago you were only renting it and now you have bought the C90B ?

Talking about a Christmas present ! :rolleyes:

[debiassi]

I would hazzard a guess that people brand them as dangerous due to their inability to recover from a spin. So if an inadvertent spin occurs during a brief moment of spatial disorientation, thats the end of the airframe and of course the pilot too if he fails to act quickly. The POH actually states in emergency procedures to activate the chute if a spin is encountered. I am also informed from a very reliable source that the chute was the only way for cirrus to obtain certification due to this very issue. Now there are lots of performance singles out there that arent certified for spins but will at least recover and protect the pilot in a momentary lapse but unfortunately not this slippery performer.

[Shunter]

In-flight King-Air picture with P2 holding a sign saying "<- Sternone P1"... or it never happened ;)

[paulp]

I am also informed from a very reliable source that the chute was the only way for cirrus to obtain certification due to this very issue.

You need to get better sources. Europe required a spin series to certify the aircraft. I know people who have recovered the SR22 from a spin. The focus was on spin prevention rather than spin recovery since the two can run counter to each other. When an aircraft is the number one selling plane in the world then the competition puts a lot of false data out there.

[glazer]

Cirrus SR22 Turbo CAPs pull over water:
Pilot escapes sinking plane | Mackay News | Local News in Mackay | Mackay Daily Mercury (http://www.dailymercury.com.au/story/2009/12/26/pilot-escapes-sinking-plane/)

[debiassi]

"Because unrecoverable spins may be encountered during initial aircraft stall/spin flight tests, spin test aircraft are commonly equipped with emergency spin-recovery parachute systems, which can be deployed to terminate the spinning motion and reduce the aircraft angle of attack to below stall conditions. The parachute is then jettisoned by the pilot and conventional flight resumed."
— Concept to Reality (http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/spin_technology.html) (contains some photos of spin-recovery parachutes)

If you know pilots who have recovered from fully developed spins in these aircraft without deploying the chutes then I take my hat off to them. They should be working for Cirrus.

[paulp]

If you know pilots who have recovered from fully developed spins in these aircraft without deploying the chutes then I take my hat off to them. They should be working for Cirrus.

Well, I do know pilots who have recovered a Cirrus from a fully developed spin. Additionally, Cirrus has done that themselves. They were required to do a subset of the full spin matrix for European certification.

[007helicopter]

And I was a bit hacked off with the snow we had, these guys really get it in Duluth - Pic taken from Cirrus Facebook page, Sternone dont worry I have allready let them know you wont be a fan and I think they may just about get over it Login | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/cirrusaircraft?ref=nf) but there for anyone else interested


http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs161.snc3/18872_224035190891_58964945891_3313280_488817_n.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3313277&id=58964945891)

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs181.snc3/18872_224035180891_58964945891_3313279_556691_n.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3313280&id=58964945891)

[sdbeach]

I would hazzard a guess that people brand them as dangerous due to their inability to recover from a spin. So if an inadvertent spin occurs during a brief moment of spatial disorientation, thats the end of the airframe and of course the pilot too if he fails to act quickly. The POH actually states in emergency procedures to activate the chute if a spin is encountered. I am also informed from a very reliable source that the chute was the only way for cirrus to obtain certification due to this very issue.As Paul points out, you have been reliably misinformed. Cirrus built the plane to avoid spins and incorporate the parachute as a safety feature of last resort.
Now there are lots of performance singles out there that arent certified for spins but will at least recover and protect the pilot in a momentary lapse but unfortunately not this slippery performer.Those performance singles will not recover and protect the pilot.

Unless you know of some technology that imparts a sixth sense to the airplane! :E

Only an attentive and skilled pilot can do that. And only if there is sufficient altitude in which to effect the recovery.

Cheers
Rick

[stepwilk]

Semantics. He obviously meant "can be recovered."

[vjmehra]

I just stumbled across this thread, but randomly happened to be looking at the NTSB website at the same time (was watching Air Crash Investigation) and decided to look up fatal crashes in the Cirrus SR20.

What I found was quite interesting was that there is not a single fatal crash (other than a test flight in 1999) that the NTSB did not determine was caused by pilot error.

In short, 1 out of the 19 recorded fatal accidents was not simply pilot error and that was a test flight, so arguably should not be taken into account in the same way.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I find it disturbing that some posters seem to think the penalty for making a pilot error should be death. There is no question that some what would other wise be certain fatal accidents were turned into ones where everyone opened the door and walked away, only because of the CAP system.

Personally I think the only real problem with Cirrus is that the training system has not kept up with the airframe and in particular the avionics technology in the aircraft. So you either get

1) An instructor who turns off all the technology and forces the pilot to navigate it like a 80 kt Tiger moth with a map and a stop watch, because he/she has no clue how to effectively use the impressive technology, or

2) So much emphasis is placed on the magic TV screens that basic hands and feet skills are never fully developed or practiced.

[maxred]

I think this engenders mixed feelings. Human beings by nature are creatures of habit. If you install an end if the road fail safe system, then the human syche, IMHO, will eventually rely on this, and MAY wander into territory that thinks, I am ok regardless.

It may be that necessary skills are then not honed, with an over reliance on either the technology, or the Fail Safe System. If the aeroplane in question, has a spin problem, then, again in my view, is that really safe?

I have not flown a Cirrus, nor been privy to be a passenger, and individuals that I know, who have one, praise them.

However, was the fixing of a parachute recovery system in the Cirrus, a nice to have, or a necessary requirement?

[Big Pistons Forever]

The Cirrus meets all of the FAR Part 23 certification requirements. It is Not approved for spins like every other aircraft of its class, however aircraft not approved for spins still have to demonstrate they can be recovered from a one turn spin with average technique.

I think Cirrus was smart. They realized the only way to ensure the aircraft would get the benefits of the chute was to make it non optional. If pilots had a choice, the luddite component of the pilot community (of which there are more than a few evident in this thread ;) )would not have bought it. Therefore it was included in the type certificate, making it mandatory.

I think one of the big fallacies of the argument about the Cirrus is all the electronic magic makes it "Easy". I could not disagree more. To fully utiltize the capability of its systems requires a lot of study and practice. It represents a significant amount of effort, however the payoff, particularly in the latest Garmin Perspective fit, is situational awareness and navigational accuracy that makes a mid 1990's Airbus cockpit look stone age.

Too many Cirrus pilots are not making the effort to learn the avionics and end up in a technology assisted accident.

[maxred]

To fully utiltize the capability of its systems requires a lot of study and practice. It represents a significant amount of effort, however the payoff, particularly in the latest Garmin Perspective fit, is situational awareness and navigational accuracy that makes a mid 1990's Airbus cockpit look stone age.

And here in lies the problem. Too many GA pilots buy aeroplanes, or mis match their skill set (over ego), that they can not cope with.

Some, obviously, are prepared to stick in the effort, but I feel, perhaps a majority, think this is a 'piece of cake', I am told it is easy, therefore will work it as I go - disaster looms eventually:\

[vjmehra]

So from what I have picked up from this thread (and general googling) it seems that the vast majority of accidents could probably have been avoided with superior training (or applying training correctly perhaps).

Whilst not relevant to me at the moment, in the future I quite like the idea of a parachute post PPL (well I like the idea now, but the general consensus seems to be that trying to learn in a complex aircraft is arguably more dangerous and could lead to unecessary errors), is it perhaps advisable to do more than the mandatory minimum for a type conversion and try and sit with someone who can explain the system intricacies and provide a more in depth training experience?

[maxred]

Exactly......Flying is like building block where experience, ratings, additional skill building, builds up to a bigger picture. Attempting to jump straight into complex types, from PPL, without the pre requisite training, is in my opinion, a potential issue. Add super dooper technology into the mix, again without adequate understanding and training, can only lead to problems further down the line.

We sometimes just have to accept that some things in life cannot be got tomorrow.....

[007helicopter]

Training is the key with a properly qualified instructor who knows how to teach the systems followed by sensible decision making.

I know quite a few owners who trained from scratch in Cirrus and there are a lot of advantages to this but it will likely take more hours than a C152 or similar.

[vjmehra]

To be fair, learning quickly isn't a concern for me, I have no desire to be a professional pilot, my goal is simply to fly as a hobby, but as safely as possible!!!

Its interesting you mention people learning from scratch in a Cirrus, I guess getting as many hours on type as possible makes sense! That said do any schools teach in a Cirrus? I was looking around the London schools and I haven't seen any that run a PPL course from scratch in a Cirrus :-(

[sdbeach]

I have not flown a Cirrus, nor been privy to be a passenger, and individuals that I know, who have one, praise them.

However, was the fixing of a parachute recovery system in the Cirrus, a nice to have, or a necessary requirement?Further to the information provided by Big Pistons Forever (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/392401-cirrus-sr22-14.html#post6779887), the parachute recovery system is part of the type certificate and hence is required for an airworthy aircraft.

How it got to be there is an interesting story. Cirrus and the FAA collaborated on better ways to deal with spins. Data was compiled that revealed that most spins were not recoverable in aircraft that had been certified for recovery from spins. Go figure. So, Cirrus proposed that the parachute system be certified as an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) to satisfy the FAR Part 23 requirements for spin certification. The FAA agreed on condition that Cirrus demonstrate that the parachute would recover an aircraft after entry into a 1-1/2 turn spin. During testing, the test pilot found it difficult to get the plane to spin. Go figure. But we have all seen the iconic video of the Cirrus certification test that demonstrated recovery from a 1-1/2 turn spin with a lost of 920' of altitude. FAA granted Cirrus an ELOS certification and the SR20 type certificate was issued. There are now over 5,000 SR2X aircraft produced.

The story doesn't end. When Cirrus applied to the Europeans to certify the SR2X, they would not accept the FAA ELOS without additional spin testing. A limited (not a full) matrix of spin tests were conducted and the report concluded that the Cirrus aircraft was difficult to get into a spin but recovered with conventional techniques albeit requiring more dramatic control inputs. The Europeans used that limited spin testing plus the FAA ELOS to grant certification for the Cirrus SR2X in Europe. And it has been certified in every other country that Cirrus has applied.

Note: the Cirrus SR2X can be and has been demonstrated to recover from spins during certification. Not all spins, but enough to satisfy the regulators.

So, the parachute is necessary. The Cirrus SR2X can be recovered from some spins.

And the parachute is a nice to have. Especially for me who doubts that I could recover any airplane from a spin, since that was not required to get a real pilots certificate from the FAA.

Cheers
Rick
(Safety liaison for the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association,
and a Cirrus SR22 owner with 3100 hours time-in-type)

[sdbeach]

Its interesting you mention people learning from scratch in a Cirrus, I guess getting as many hours on type as possible makes sense! That said do any schools teach in a Cirrus?Yes, several flight training programs in universities with aviation schools have acquired fleets of Cirrus SR20 aircraft:


Western Michigan University
Purdue University
Ohio State University
Lake Superior College
US Air Force Academy (T-53A variant)

And if you are asking about flight training schools, then there are several Cirrus Training Centers around the world and some of them use an integrated syllabus, Access to Flight (http://www.asa2fly.com/The-Pilots-Manual-Access-to-Flight-Syllabus--P1247_product1.aspx), to prepare student pilots for both a private certificate and an instrument rating at the same time.

The Flight Academy reports that they have trained over 100 student pilots to private pilot certificate in a Cirrus. Zero time to a PPL. Pretty cool.

Cheers
Rick
(Safety liaison for the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association,
and a Cirrus SR22 owner with 3100 hours time-in-type)

[IO540]

Ab initio training in a "complex" type is not that unusual. It is just very unusual (unheard of, AFAIK) in the UK. A number of flying schools in the Far East have been training in TB20s.

[vjmehra]

Yep, I've not seen any around London yet (London, England to avoid confusion) :-(

Or even any nearby...

[baldwinm]

How about JPM Aviation - Home (http://www.jmflying.com) at North Weald?

[vjmehra]

Wow, looks great! Cool thanks, will check them out!

[tdbristol]

Interesting article in AVweb ("Fun With Parachute Mode") about the rate of descent in a DA40 with the trim right back and throttle at idle (stalled 'phugoid' mode ?), being in the same order as the Cirrus with the parachute deployed, albeit with the DA40 having 48kts forward velocity.

Parachute in a Plane (http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsider_ParachuteMode_205652-1.html)

In which case does the parachute buy you much?

The article also mentions other planes that can do similar 'parachute mode' ?

[BackPacker]

Read the article, then read comment #3, by the author:

You do have to keep the wings level with rudder or aileron.

This means that you have to be able to keep the wings level to start with. So in a spin, you've got to recover from the spin first anyway. And in IMC, you are now trying to keep the wings level on instruments while the aircraft is bucking every which way. (Assuming that the instruments work in the first place - if you have an engine failure in IMC you also lose vacuum pressure and thus the AH and DI.)

I like the DA40 but to suggest that this parachute mode is a direct contender to the Cirrus CAPS system is a bit over the top, I think.

[Fuji Abound]

It would be interesting to know whether Diamond have included any design features to reduce the energy transmitted in a "vertical" descent - I suspect not. Cirrus have done so and therefore in terms of the energy transmitted to the POB I suspect the two are less than comparable.

In the event of a forced landing I think the author and Diamond should be careful about making out the POB are likely to have the same "protection" that a CAPS descent in a Cirrus might afford although over the "wrong" terrain and in the "right" weather conditions it just might be a better option than a conventional forced landing.

[iwrbf]

Hi,

48kt are 48kt are 48 kt... are 48kt you have to de-energize when hitting any structure, no matter if it's a corn field, a tree or a brick wall.

I would always (!) favor the parachute over the high angle approach with minimum forward movement.

About the crash resistance: there has been a C182 (old generation) crash a few weeks ago with minor injuries. There doesn't seem to be much need for a crumple zone when a chute is being installed. Good to have, but not essential as it seems.

I'm stunned that the BRS retrofit for the C172 and C182 models is chosen by so few - for the price of some avionics gimmicks and with only 25kg or so weight penalty one can save ones life (and their loved ones') in so many cases of spatial disorientation, midlife collisions, incapitation and so on... (no, I don't have any connection with BRS to praise their products, but the BRS chute discussion has some similarity with the seat belt discussions in the 70s and 80s...)

Kind regards,
Peter

[vjmehra]

Thanks for the link to JPM Aviation, baldwinm, unfortunately they are unable to offer PPL training :-(

Any other suggestions anyone?

[OFBSLF]

In which case does the parachute buy you much?
I'm sorry, but that article seemed to this SLF to be ridiculous. If you can control the aircraft well enough to keep it in that controlled attitude, why wouldn't you just recover?

The point of the parachute is for when you've lost control. And if you've lost control, then how are you going to get into that controlled attitude?

If you lose control at low altitude, it seems to my uneducated mind that you might be able to pull the parachute handle in time, but that you are highly unlikely to be able to get the aircraft into that controlled, nose-up mode that the author speaks about.

[Fuji Abound]

Maybe, (with regards spin training) but some of these aircraft havent demonstrated spin recovery during their certification and like many things i am not convinced of the value of training unless it is cojoined with currency. I still fly aeros enough but i know after a few months of missing them a deliberate spin is still interesting - then again i am probably just getting old. Still if push comes to shove i would prefer the pilot pulls the handle than rely on a few hours of spin training five years ago.

[BackPacker]

Just wondering. How many CAPS deployments in recent years were done due to inadvertent spins? I can't remember any, but then again I'm not keeping a detailed track of this.

The deployments I can remember were mostly loss-of-control in IMC and in one instance an incapacitated pilot whose wife deployed the CAPS instead of risking to fly the aircraft to a landing.

In any case, the place where you are most likely to spin due to mishandling is somewhere on base/final and in that situation both spin training and CAPS has a value of exactly zero.

[vjmehra]

A very quick look at the NTSB website suggests you are correct, most deployments are due to loss of control/awareness in IMC.

[Fuji Abound]

I dont recall a caps deployment following a spin but it is a conceivable scenario. Even at low level there is some suggestion a caps partial deployment can help assuming of course the pilot reacts quickly enough. Some suggested the pilot that suffered an efato at staverton might have benefited by pulling the chute; he didnt so it is speculation.

[baldwinm]

Thanks for the link to JPM Aviation, baldwinm, unfortunately they are unable to offer PPL training :-(

Sorry, I fly from Blackpool with a related organisation (who do PPL training in the Cirrus) so I assumed they would.

[vjmehra]

They actually suggested Blackpool to me, as an alternative! But it's too far to travel (unless I was flying I guess ;-)

[BackPacker]

Even at low level there is some suggestion a caps partial deployment can help

Is there any data wrt. the altitude loss from the moment you pull the CAPS handle, to the moment the parachute is fully deployed and you're in a stable descent?

[Fuji Abound]

I gather you might get full deployment in as little as 400 feet.

Even with a partial deployment I guess the drag would have a significant impact on forward velocity.

It does raise the sole searching question in the event of an EFATO at what height you might pull the chute, discussed on many occasions on COPA. I suspect every pilot must reach their own conclusions taken together with the circumstances of the pull.

The Cirrus does have some useful features to help reduce injury caused by forward velocity including in belt air bags and a crumple zone.

I was looking very recently at the remains of the cockpit of a Cirrus that suffered an EFATO; the passenger compartment survived extraordinarily well in the circumstances disregarding for a moment the fire damage.

[BackPacker]

Even with a partial deployment I guess the drag would have a significant impact on forward velocity.

Mmm. My gut feeling tells me that that might be a bad thing actually. If you have a partially deployed chute slowing you down, it may (will?) slow you down below stall speed so you lose wing lift. But at the same time the chute is not fully deployed so it may not fully cushion the vertical speed. Additionally, it will take time for the aircraft to dangle backwards, vertically below the chute so initially there may be an increase of vertical speed. In an EFATO scenario, that might just happen to be the point where you hit the ground.

In addition to this, somebody mentioned that if you're sitting more or less upright, and are properly strapped in, your body can sustain 50G in the horizontal, but only 15G or so in the vertical, because your spine is relatively weak in compression. I haven't done the sums (and they would depend on the size of the horizontal and vertical crumple zone anyway) but based on this it may well be that crashing horizontally into something at stall speed is more survivable than crashing vertically into something under a partially inflated chute. (But I'll take a fully inflated chute over an unrecovered spiral dive any day!)

So my gut feeling tells me that using the chute in an EFATO situation, when you are below the altitude for full deployment, might actually worsen the situation. Compared to gliding the plane to a more-or-less suitable landing spot.

But I'm not a Cirrus pilot or owner, and all I know about the CAPS system is from what I read on here. I would certainly hope that the Cirrus type-specific training that is on offer (and, I understand, is mandated by insurance companies) would go into the deployment of CAPS, including when NOT to deploy it. Just like turning back to the airfield or not, in an EFATO situation.

(Edited: It's PPRuNe that feels the need to explain the E-F-A-T-O abbreviation every time, not me. :\)

[SEP Flyer]

In addition to this, somebody mentioned that if you're sitting more or less upright, and are properly strapped in, your body can sustain 50G in the horizontal, but only 15G or so in the vertical, because your spine is relatively weak in compression. I haven't done the sums (and they would depend on the size of the horizontal and vertical crumple zone anyway) but based on this it may well be that crashing horizontally into something at stall speed is more survivable than crashing vertically into something under a partially inflated chute.

Good point - I know helicopter seats have energy absorbing properties to help protect the spine against high G in a hard vertical landing, does the Cirrus have anything similar? I presume that the sprung landing gear of a Cirrus will also help reduce the vertical G shock on the body as well.

I remember when former Formula 1 driver David Purley crashed his car in the late '70's and a quick google search has shown this was a 179G crash and he survived :ok:- perhaps aircraft designers could learn a lesson about building light weight but strong energy absorbing airframe 'tubs' from the motor racing brigade!

As we all know, it's not the fall that hurts, but the sudden stop at the end :eek:

[BackPacker]

does the Cirrus have anything similar?

As far as I know, yes. At least the undercarriage and I thought the seat support structure too are supposed to crumple in case of a vertical impact (such as when descending under the parachute) to reduce the impact forces.

[007helicopter]

VJMEHRA call John Page at Cirrus Aircraft & Glass Cockpit Training | Cirrus Aircraft Rental (http://www.taauk.net/)

They are in Denham, have SR20 and SR22 and do a lot of the UK transition training.

John is "probably" the most experienced Cirrus instructor in the UK

In theory they can do Ab Initio so worth a call

[sdbeach]

Just wondering. How many CAPS deployments in recent years were done due to inadvertent spins? I can't remember any, but then again I'm not keeping a detailed track of this.Interesting question is whether a loss of control is a spin or if a spin is a loss of control? Dunno if accident investigators are that precise in determining the kind of loss of control.

As for CAPS pulls after a spin, yes, the Indianapolis, IN, accident in 2006 involved a 3-1/2 turn spin (NTSB report here (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20060831X01268&key=1)).

The flight data was recovered from the avionics. The plane was in the spin for over 15 seconds and had been in a mushed state for 30 more seconds prior to that. The parachute activation was determined to be at 528' AGL, just 4 seconds prior to impact into a shallow pond. The recorded data showed that the airspeed declined from 100 knots to 67 knots in those 4 seconds. The pilot died from blunt force trauma to the head. The activation was done by the pilot's son in the right seat after the pilot's wife in the back seat suggested the parachute at least 3 times, according to the witness interviews with the accident investigator.

Just 4 seconds earlier and the impact would likely have been at 17 knots and survivable.

Cheers
Rick

[sdbeach]

Is there any data wrt. the altitude loss from the moment you pull the CAPS handle, to the moment the parachute is fully deployed and you're in a stable descent?Yes. During certification testing, Cirrus demonstrated the loss of altitude of 400' from level flight and of 920' during recovery from a 1-1/2 turn spin. From recorded flight data we have seen one instance where the altitude loss was 890' from activation while inverted at 34 KIAS! Amazing that the CAPS system recovers from such an unusual attitude.

Another high-speed deployment at 187 KIAS in a 4000 fpm spiral dive lost about 400' altitude. Interesting that the faster airspeed resulted in a faster deployment.

Cheers
Rick

[sdbeach]

Mmm. My gut feeling tells me that that might be a bad thing actually. If you have a partially deployed chute slowing you down, it may (will?) slow you down below stall speed so you lose wing lift. But at the same time the chute is not fully deployed so it may not fully cushion the vertical speed. Additionally, it will take time for the aircraft to dangle backwards, vertically below the chute so initially there may be an increase of vertical speed. In an EFATO scenario, that might just happen to be the point where you hit the ground.You are asking excellent questions. Well done.

However, it is important to realize that "it will take time" requires just 8 seconds to completely eliminate all forward velocity after activating CAPS and achieve a level attitude under canopy.

Rapid deployment was a design criteria enabled by the ballistic rocket extraction of the parachute into the slipstream. Very effective. Very short time period. Think about how short 8 seconds can be in an emergency response!


Cheers
Rick

[BackPacker]

That's pretty impressive. So what's the minimum altitude for succesful CAPS deployment in an EFATO situation, assuming more or less level flight? About 500' or so?

[sdbeach]

In addition to this, somebody mentioned that if you're sitting more or less upright, and are properly strapped in, your body can sustain 50G in the horizontal, but only 15G or so in the vertical, because your spine is relatively weak in compression. I haven't done the sums (and they would depend on the size of the horizontal and vertical crumple zone anyway) but based on this it may well be that crashing horizontally into something at stall speed is more survivable than crashing vertically into something under a partially inflated chute. (But I'll take a fully inflated chute over an unrecovered spiral dive any day!)What forces are survivable are subject to experimentation. What forces are experienced in an airplane crash are empirical.

And you don't really want to be in a crash where the forces exceed survivable limits.

First, consider crashing at stall speed. For calculation purposes, the Cirrus SR22 stall speed is 59 knots. FYI, observable airspeeds in a Cirrus spin have been consistently 100 knots and spiral descents are often in excess of 180 knots. In comparison, under canopy the vertical descent is 17 knots (1700 fpm, 20 mph, equivalent of a 13 foot drop).

If you hit something, the energy dissipated is related by the square of the velocity. Hence, the impact at 59 knots stall speed has 12 times more energy to dissipate. (FYI, those other speeds have 34 and 112 times more energy.)

Ah, the claim is made that the human body can withstand greater horizontal forces than vertical forces. Except, ground impacts are rarely one-dimensional and consequently the human body is subjected to significant forces in other dimensions. And there is the problem of restraints failing at higher than specified forces. The current restraint specification is 26G forward deceleration.

For me, I would much, much prefer to activate the CAPS parachute a few seconds earlier and descend vertically under a fully inflated parachute than risk a higher energy impact.

Cheers
Rick

[sdbeach]

That's pretty impressive. So what's the minimum altitude for succesful CAPS deployment in an EFATO situation, assuming more or less level flight? About 500' or so? Yes, 500' AGL is a convenient rule of thumb.

Flight instructors involved with the Cirrus full-motion simulators and the Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program (CPPP) have established two altitudes for loss of engine power on takeoff and the following guidelines based on the viability of the CAPS parachute system:


Below 500' AGL: NO CAPS!
Plan a departure briefing with options to land straight ahead
Above 500' AGL: CAPS NOW!
Immediate action is required due to the observed delay in recognizing an emergency and then taking action, before the aircraft descends below a viable altitude for using CAPS
Above 2000' AGL: CONSIDER CAPS!
Note that this is higher than pattern altitude, and it provides sufficient altitude to make choices, but stay alert for descent through 500' AGL when CAPS may be a better choice than an off-airport crash.

These procedures are accompanied by guidance on developing a departure briefing. What altitude is 500' AGL? 2000' AGL? What are my options below 500' AGL? Where will I be if I climb at Vy to 500' AGL? How can terrain affect my options? Etc.


Cheers
Rick

[BackPacker]

If you hit something, the energy dissipated is related by the square of the velocity. Hence, the impact at 59 knots stall speed has 12 times more energy to dissipate. (FYI, those other speeds have 34 and 112 times more energy.)

Just out of curiosity (and boredom) I decided to look up the relevant formula, plug in these numbers and see what I got.

v1^2 - v0^2 = 2ad, where:
v1 = initial velocity
v0 = terminal velocity
a = acceleration
d = distance travelled

In the vertical descent under a canopy case (17 knots as quoted = 8.75 m/s), my estimate is that the "crumple zone" is 0.5m - essentially the height of the landing gear. Assuming that the crumple zone crumples evenly, you are confronted with an acceleration of 76.56 m/s^2 or 7.6G. Very survivable, as multiple CAPS deployments have shown.

Now the horizontal arrest, where you fly the aircraft to a crash landing at stall speed (59 knots as quoted = 30 m/s). Assuming a "crumple zone" of 1m (essentially the engine compartment), you get an acceleration of 450 m/s^2, or 45G. Ouch.

But the latter is assuming you essentially hit a concrete wall at stall speed, and all you have to arrest your speed is the crumpling engine compartiment (which probably is not an all that good crumple zone to begin with). If you land in something that has a little more "give", like bushes, crops or something similar, and assume a landing distance of 10m, the acceleration goes down to 45 m/s^2, or 4.5G. Not bad actually.

So I'm not entirely sure if I agree to the "CAPS NOW" notion of EFATO between 500' and 2000'. It would definitely depend on the terrain below.

On the other hand - this discussion does show the benefit of CAPS. It gives you a choice in situations like this which other airframes don't give you. But in an emergency situation you can't spend a lot of time deciding what to do. So creating a contingency plan as part of the departure briefing, like you suggested, is the best course of action. And that should take into account the terrain.

[abgd]

A little while back I looked through the NTSB databases on forced landings for LongEZs and VariEze's. It appeared that any forced landing onto unimproved terrain had a good chance of killing the occupants. Alas, I don't recall the percentage. Slower-stalling aircraft like STOL taildraggers, had a much better safety record, unsurprisingly. I'm assuming, of course, that there haven't been lots of unreported LongEZ forced landings.

I'd be interested to see more figures regarding stall speed and forced landing survivability, and I'd have thought it would help in deciding when to pull the handle.

[Fuji Abound]

In the vertical descent under a canopy case (17 knots as quoted = 8.75 m/s), my estimate is that the "crumple zone" is 0.5m - essentially the height of the landing gear. Assuming that the crumple zone crumples evenly, you are confronted with an acceleration of 76.56 m/s^2 or 7.6G. Very survivable, as multiple CAPS deployments have shown.


Possibly conservative as Cirrus say there is an additional crumple zone between the seats and the belly. Moreover to compare like with like you are assuming the landing is on solid terrain in one instance (with CAPS) but through bushes etc in the second (without CAPS). A Cirrus landing under CAPS onto a hedge will enjoy the same benefits as a FL through a hedge. Finally the energy vector is preferable vertically than horizontally as previously discussed.

All in all I agree it is academic however. The evidence is many FL are very successful and with some luck that you dont hit anything too solid they will probably work out fine but without luck the outcome is poor. With CAPS the outcome is more heavily weighted in favour of the occupants across a range of landings, the weighting improving at night or with low cloud where a conventional FL becomes more of a lottery.

So the argument in favour of CAPS is with CAPS you are pretty assured of a landing with 7.6G (to use your figure) or without CAPS between 45G and 4.5G without really knowing which card you will get dealt?

I quite like the idea of reducing the chance element as much as possible which is why I think CAPS a good idea all other issues aside the more especially if you intend to fly over a variety of terrain, at night or with low cloud.


I'd be interested to see more figures regarding stall speed and forced landing survivability, and I'd have thought it would help in deciding when to pull the handle.


I am not sure. With CAPS the pilot is going to make a quick assessment of whether he feels reasonably certain he can complete a successful conventional FL. I guess if there is an attractive field and the pilot is comfortable his skills are sound that might be the preferred option.

However, at the back of his mind he is also going to be aware for the above reasons that he is more assured of a successful outcome with a CAPS deployment.

I agree that the slower the approach speed (in types where CAPS might be installed other than Cirrus) the pilot will factor in the possibility of landing in a much smaller field or accept a landing site that he might judge unsuitable in a Cirrus.

Whenever I have asked a pilot to demonstrate a PFL I am conscious that their skills are more often not as sharp as they imagine. I suspect most FLs end up than being less than the perfect ones we imagine. However I am pleasantly surprised how often the outcome is reasonable. I have never been certain whether this says more about the performance of us pilots when push comes to shove or the resiliance of the human body and the aircraft we fly.

[sdbeach]

But the latter is assuming you essentially hit a concrete wall at stall speed, and all you have to arrest your speed is the crumpling engine compartiment (which probably is not an all that good crumple zone to begin with). If you land in something that has a little more "give", like bushes, crops or something similar, and assume a landing distance of 10m, the acceleration goes down to 45 m/s^2, or 4.5G. Not bad actually.Not bad -- except for the consequences of having high energy!

At stall speed, are you not on the edge of control? Just a bit slower and you stall and lose lift and quickly lose altitude.

Here's what happened in a fatal accident with an experienced Cirrus pilot who apparently attempted to extend the glide after smelling fumes in the cockpit, diverted, did a power-off glide and stalled:
http://www.cirruspilots.org/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Discussions.Components.Files/4/6303.443090.jpg

So, yeah, the best-case outcome can be "not bad actually."
But the worst-case outcome is deadly -- really bad actually! :eek:

In a review of all Cirrus parachute deployments, those within design parameters (below 133 knots airspeed and above demonstrated loss of altitude) have been survivable. Zero fatalities. No post impact fires.

Cheers
Rick

[vjmehra]

007Helicopter, I tried TAA, they were very helpfull and responded very quickly. Unfortuantely their PPL rate would be (approx) £368 per hour, which may be a bit over my budget :-(

[007helicopter]

Unfortunately it will be relatively expensive in a Cirrus, I cant think of anywhere else in striking distance of London. Rates are much more reasonable in the US even factoring in travel and other costs if you had the time and inclination do to a block training.

[lotusexige]

I wonder would the engine position have any relevance to the statistics of the Rutan canards v the STOL aircraft? Agreed of course, the slower the crash the less damage done but having a few hundred pounds of Lycoming going ahead of you has to be better than having the Lycoming trying to come through you.

[vjmehra]

Pair rescued off Bahamas coast after private plane plummets into the sea | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083980/Pair-rescued-Bahamas-coast-private-plane-plummets-sea.html)

Nice to see the chute doing exactly what it was designed to do and allow everyone to walk (sail) away afterwards!

[stickandrudderman]

Great result.

[sdbeach]

More info on the Cirrus parachute pull in the Bahamas last Saturday:
Early Reflections on CAPS Pull #32 by Dick McGlaughlin in the Bahamas (http://www.cirruspilots.org/blogs/pull_early_pull_often/archive/2012/01/09/early-reflections-on-caps-pull-32-by-dick-mcglaughlin-in-the-bahamas.aspx)

Cheers
Rick

[JammedStab]

I found this to be an excellent thread. I recently completed a checkout in a Cirrus SR-22 G1.

If anyone has any updated opinions on the Cirrus, they would be most welcome.

[JammedStab]

There are a lot of lost of control accidents on landings in a Cirrus, do you have reason for that ?



I suspect that this statement from an instructor may be true, "It is my opinion and experience that the Cirrus BRS system attracts over-ambitious but under-skilled pilots whose spouses are placated by the BRS myth making the Cirrus the "doctor killer" of the current era."

[DIBO]

I didn't want to start a new topic as this one is all about the SR22 and BRS:

One down today and thanks to BRS the two pax and a dog walked away from this 'landing'.
https://www.aviation24.be/miscellaneous/accidents/light-aircraft-crashes-wolfsdonk-belgium/

It's a petty (for the plane) they didn't make it to the smaller uncontrolled GA airfields right underneath the flightpath when trouble started at FL200. Instead they opted to divert to Brussels but it seems they where vectored for a looooong ILS approach, and came down 20 miles short. With hindsight, this option certainly worked for the occupants; the GA field alternative option, unfamiliar area with 1800-2000ft AGL broken ceiling & 6 nm vis., maybe nobody manning the A/G radio, etc. did not guarantee a safe (plane&pax) outcome either.

[Jan Olieslagers]

It is easy to be clever when looking on from a distance, I know very well. Still, I cannot help thinking EBBR was about the poorest choice possible for an emergency landing. Plus that, as stated above, there were plenty of alternatives at hand, EBBE Beauvechain to begin with. Depending on their location when "trouble" began, EBLG Liege and EBST Sint Truiden would also have been possible, both very quiet at the time of day, both with long hard runways. And while perhaps EBST radio might not be active, EBLG and EBBE certainly would.
Had they called a Mayday, or even Pan-Pan? In that case, EBST could certainly have been "woken up".

But the official accident report will explain it all, in a couple of years.

[[ later added ]] @above: perhaps the meaning was "it is a pity"? As the phrase stands, it looks a bit funny.