Cirrus pilots are dangerous
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liking your response Dr.
Having a fair amount of time on C-150's and blaniks, I do agree. Though I never really regarded the blanik as being an agressive spinner, more that it settled into the spin more readily than some other types I have flown.
Whilst to a degree I advocate spin training, I advocate recognition of an impending spin even more. I am not aware (and am open to suggestions) of any type that does not give a warning signal for the impending stall/spin. This is something glider pilots practice heavily. When a glider pilot progresses into a new type, one of the first things on their list is a couple of full spins to get the recovery down pat, then there is a lot of time incipient spinning to learn the warning signs. The LAST place they want to be learning this is in a thermal with 10 gliders below. They want to know it so intensely, that when they do enter a point where the spin is imminent, they merely release some back pressure, or a little rudder, with no disruption to the flight path, nor reference to the flight instruments. They practice until the required input is automatic.
Look at the difference in attitude. A glider pilot spins EVERY type they fly, a power pilot is on the cusp of fearing spins!.
Old akro,
some types the spin entry can be quite violent. One that comes to mind is the Pilatus PC-11-AF. Like the PA-38, it rolls onto its back first, but it does it in a manner more akin to a flick roll, it pauses for up to 1 second, then flicks again into a fully developed spin before the end of the first rotation after the inverted stage. (this scenario for the traditional turning final gentle control input style of entry)
If you push it into a spin, it behaves differently. I.e the control inputs are there forcing the spin, Full rudder to begin with. With a forced spin, it will rotate straight into a fully developed spin quite aggressively. (whole lot of fun lemme tell ya!) But the type is benign enough to recover the moment you take corrective action
As I said above, i am not sure full spin training is appropriate, but certiainly incipient training, so the that the pilot has some understanding of what indicators to be looking for and take remedial action the moment the airframe gives its warning.
Having a fair amount of time on C-150's and blaniks, I do agree. Though I never really regarded the blanik as being an agressive spinner, more that it settled into the spin more readily than some other types I have flown.
Whilst to a degree I advocate spin training, I advocate recognition of an impending spin even more. I am not aware (and am open to suggestions) of any type that does not give a warning signal for the impending stall/spin. This is something glider pilots practice heavily. When a glider pilot progresses into a new type, one of the first things on their list is a couple of full spins to get the recovery down pat, then there is a lot of time incipient spinning to learn the warning signs. The LAST place they want to be learning this is in a thermal with 10 gliders below. They want to know it so intensely, that when they do enter a point where the spin is imminent, they merely release some back pressure, or a little rudder, with no disruption to the flight path, nor reference to the flight instruments. They practice until the required input is automatic.
Look at the difference in attitude. A glider pilot spins EVERY type they fly, a power pilot is on the cusp of fearing spins!.
Old akro,
some types the spin entry can be quite violent. One that comes to mind is the Pilatus PC-11-AF. Like the PA-38, it rolls onto its back first, but it does it in a manner more akin to a flick roll, it pauses for up to 1 second, then flicks again into a fully developed spin before the end of the first rotation after the inverted stage. (this scenario for the traditional turning final gentle control input style of entry)
If you push it into a spin, it behaves differently. I.e the control inputs are there forcing the spin, Full rudder to begin with. With a forced spin, it will rotate straight into a fully developed spin quite aggressively. (whole lot of fun lemme tell ya!) But the type is benign enough to recover the moment you take corrective action
As I said above, i am not sure full spin training is appropriate, but certiainly incipient training, so the that the pilot has some understanding of what indicators to be looking for and take remedial action the moment the airframe gives its warning.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a Cirrus online at our little flying club. There is no type rating imposed, but there are very strict minimums imposed by the insurance company. Plus a ground school and checkout by the CFI. We have had guys with close to the minimums but the insurance companies wouldn't budge and they had to fly with a safety pilot appropriately experienced in type with decency requirements.
A very nice bird to fly, no more difficult than any other higher performance GA aircraft. Personally I think part of the problem is pilots seem to think FIKI, oxygen, a turbo and high speeds with a chute as backup means you can punch through weather you might not try in your C210. Nothing could be further from the truth. And the pilots that I have read about that are making that call are lower hour, with less REAL IFR experience.
Just my thoughts...
Cheers
CB
A very nice bird to fly, no more difficult than any other higher performance GA aircraft. Personally I think part of the problem is pilots seem to think FIKI, oxygen, a turbo and high speeds with a chute as backup means you can punch through weather you might not try in your C210. Nothing could be further from the truth. And the pilots that I have read about that are making that call are lower hour, with less REAL IFR experience.
Just my thoughts...
Cheers
CB
Last edited by Cloud Basher; 27th May 2012 at 23:26.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no type rating imposed, but there are very strict minimums imposed by the insurance company.
there are very strict minimums imposed by the insurance company. Plus a ground school and checkout by the CFI.
Probably something that happens in Cessna's too after all 
It would be handy if the accident aircraft referenced in the thread starter had a breakdown of what panels were in the aircraft. From what i've seen over the years many cirrus started out with the 'traditional' six pack then the Avidine panels were popular and now theres the Garmin panels. Do it make a difference ?
.
.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Panels or 6 pack instruments will not be the deal breaker. It is pilot training, profficiency and recency.
Having blind faith in "the chute will save me" combined with lacking or degraded flying skils and decission making is what the problem is.
The same as was the FTDK, the SRDK is today.
Having blind faith in "the chute will save me" combined with lacking or degraded flying skils and decission making is what the problem is.
The same as was the FTDK, the SRDK is today.
It would be handy if the accident aircraft referenced in the thread starter had a breakdown of what panels were in the aircraft. From what i've seen over the years many cirrus started out with the 'traditional' six pack then the Avidine panels were popular and now theres the Garmin panels. Do it make a difference ?
In a word, yes!
FAA studies into factors relating to "glass cockpits" are instructive, many of the anticipated benefits of glass, versus a GA fleet equipped in many cases with WWII surplus round dials, have not been realised.
The problem is not limited to Cirrus.
We all accept that there are many "accidents" that start of as VFR pilots flying into IMC. The expected reductions of accidents and incidents from the benefits of "advanced cockpits" are not being realised. That almost all of the newer aircraft with "glass" also have seductively good autopilots is probably a contributing factor.
The quick and dirty analysis is that pilots are pushing that little bit further than they would done in an older aircraft, with the same outcome.
I don't really think that the Cirrus spin recovery characteristics ( or lack thereof) has much to do with the problem under discussion.
The rules of survival have not changed, if you are not qualified AND CURRENT for flight in IMC, don't!!
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 30th May 2012 at 02:16.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You hear a lot about Cirrus crashes because, since 2002, the SR22 has been the number one selling aircraft in the world and still is today. There are a lot flying and they are (rightly or wrongly) flying challenging missions. If you look here you can see how many are in the US ATC system at any time. It can lead to interesting things. For example, I took two snapshots during the peak of the day and compared the SR22 to the DA40. The ratio exactly matched the ratio of fatal DA40 accidents compared to SR22 fatals in the US NTSB database.
I have a good friend who has intentionally spun and recovered an SR22. I have read that it takes assertive forward stick and you must pull power. In other words, follow PowerAileronRudderElevator and not the remove hands form controls method.
Twins aren't spin certified. Why is there so much concern over singles and spin certification and yet it doesn't seem to bother the same people when it comes to twins? As another poster noted, Cirrus spin deaths have come at 500' on a base to final stall spin scenario. I do think there is a design factor involved. SR22 pattern speeds are 100 knots downwind and 90 knots base. If you fly a 172 style pattern and try to make it rectangular you can wind up banking too much. You have to widen the pattern or make the downwind-base-final more curved than in a 172. There's no magic here. It's just a faster plane in the pattern. In many ways it's more like being in a 310 than a 172.
If you go through the US NTSB and FAA databases and compare the percentage of the fleet involved in fatal accidents since 2000 you find:
SR22 1.86
C182 1.11
C310 1.95
C210 2.19
V35 1.50
A36 3.28
Helping the SR22 is the fact that I used present FAA listed fleet size and the fleet was small in the first few years of the time period. Hurting the SR22 is that, by definition, pilots were low time in type during the first few years of SR22 sales. During that period the plane had a lot higher accident rate. If you read the book "The Killing Zone" there is a good analysis of when pilots are more accident prone and the first 200 hours in type is one of the killing zones. Even today there are a lot more low time in type Cirrus pilots than Bonanza pilots.
I have a good friend who has intentionally spun and recovered an SR22. I have read that it takes assertive forward stick and you must pull power. In other words, follow PowerAileronRudderElevator and not the remove hands form controls method.
Twins aren't spin certified. Why is there so much concern over singles and spin certification and yet it doesn't seem to bother the same people when it comes to twins? As another poster noted, Cirrus spin deaths have come at 500' on a base to final stall spin scenario. I do think there is a design factor involved. SR22 pattern speeds are 100 knots downwind and 90 knots base. If you fly a 172 style pattern and try to make it rectangular you can wind up banking too much. You have to widen the pattern or make the downwind-base-final more curved than in a 172. There's no magic here. It's just a faster plane in the pattern. In many ways it's more like being in a 310 than a 172.
If you go through the US NTSB and FAA databases and compare the percentage of the fleet involved in fatal accidents since 2000 you find:
SR22 1.86
C182 1.11
C310 1.95
C210 2.19
V35 1.50
A36 3.28
Helping the SR22 is the fact that I used present FAA listed fleet size and the fleet was small in the first few years of the time period. Hurting the SR22 is that, by definition, pilots were low time in type during the first few years of SR22 sales. During that period the plane had a lot higher accident rate. If you read the book "The Killing Zone" there is a good analysis of when pilots are more accident prone and the first 200 hours in type is one of the killing zones. Even today there are a lot more low time in type Cirrus pilots than Bonanza pilots.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The quick and dirty analysis is that pilots are pushing that little bit further than they would done in an older aircraft, with the same outcome.
There is a concept called risk homeostasis which states that we increase the risk we take on until we reach our personal comfort level. If we get a better handling car we tend to drive a little faster. The problem is that we do this based on perceived risk. Comfort and cool avionics can, I think, cause us to subconsciously perceive a lower risk level and hence we take on more risk to adjust. Unfortunately, real risk reduction is lower than we perceive.
Aye Leadie,
Re "The quick and dirty analysis is that pilots are pushing that little bit further than they would done in an older aircraft, with the same outcome."
Was this not the same 'logic' when VOR's in the USA became 'commonplace'?
Previously, some pilots would not venture in 'poor' weather, then, with the advent of the VOR, some pilots reckoned they 'knew where they were'...so pushed the envelope a little further, and, lo and behold, a few 'overdue' aircraft were finally located right under the flight track between two VOR's or in close proximity to one of them....
A 'little knowledge' comes to mind....
Be careful out there....
Re "The quick and dirty analysis is that pilots are pushing that little bit further than they would done in an older aircraft, with the same outcome."
Was this not the same 'logic' when VOR's in the USA became 'commonplace'?
Previously, some pilots would not venture in 'poor' weather, then, with the advent of the VOR, some pilots reckoned they 'knew where they were'...so pushed the envelope a little further, and, lo and behold, a few 'overdue' aircraft were finally located right under the flight track between two VOR's or in close proximity to one of them....
A 'little knowledge' comes to mind....
Be careful out there....
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: adelaide australia
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking through the last three years of the NTSBs database, I think one could equate the casualties rate of helicopters to the casualty rate of Cirrus Aircraft.
Has anyone compared the accident rate between fixed and rotary wing?
It seems to me that on a basic level, the fatality rate in rotary wing would be as high or higher than in a Cirrus.
Has anyone compared the accident rate between fixed and rotary wing?
It seems to me that on a basic level, the fatality rate in rotary wing would be as high or higher than in a Cirrus.
PaulP is right - Cirrus seems to suffer from a classic case of risk shifting - a subject that has a Nobel Prize attached to it for the first person who can quantify and predict the behaviour.
The lovely glass and the parachute are a temptation, as are ABS and stability augmentation systems in automobiles.
To put that another way, I wonder if the aircraft was deliberately made a little less forgiving and slightly more difficult to master, the accident rate would decline?
The lovely glass and the parachute are a temptation, as are ABS and stability augmentation systems in automobiles.
To put that another way, I wonder if the aircraft was deliberately made a little less forgiving and slightly more difficult to master, the accident rate would decline?
In the US an instructor trainee must gain a sign-off that they've demonstrated competency recovering from spins. The equivalent in Oz is called an endorsement. Further, in Oz, an instructor is not authorised to teach spinning unless endorsed to teach spins.
Would be interesting to know what the fatality rate of the FTDK of the time (yester-year) would be in comparison to the SR2X now days....
I never cease to be amazed by my incredible piloting skills!
Dr
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heres another one:
Plane crashes in Kane County, 4 killed | ksl.com
Couldnt happen in a Cessna eh?
(sounds like the ELT worked)
Plane crashes in Kane County, 4 killed | ksl.com
Couldnt happen in a Cessna eh?
(sounds like the ELT worked)
Last edited by Clearedtoreenter; 3rd Jun 2012 at 09:59.
Not only the Cirrus owners, talking to a guy restoring a c172, he is busy putting an autopilot into it in case he gets IMC and gets disorientated. He thinks I was yanking his chain, when I explained to him the autopilot may not save him when he has a loss of control IMC or the bit of cloud he punches through actually is hiding a CB!
Some pilots with well euipped aircraft seem to forget that autopilots fails, EFIS does fail, electrical systems pop cb's etc and you are back to hand flying on very basic instrumentation on a dark night and then have to hand fly an ILS to the minima.
Some pilots with well euipped aircraft seem to forget that autopilots fails, EFIS does fail, electrical systems pop cb's etc and you are back to hand flying on very basic instrumentation on a dark night and then have to hand fly an ILS to the minima.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some pilots with well euipped aircraft seem to forget that autopilots fails, EFIS does fail, electrical systems pop cb's etc and you are back to hand flying on very basic instrumentation on a dark night and then have to hand fly an ILS to the minima.