|
Foreign Type Certificate Details Type Certificate: Number A00009CH Issued by: Federal Aviation Administration Manufacturer: Cirrus Design Corporation Model: SR20 SR22 Engines: Teledyne Continental IO-360-ES Teledyne Continental IO-550-N Propellers: Hartzell BHC-J2YF-1BF/F7694 Hartzell PHC-J3YF-1RF/F7694 Hartzell PHC-J3YF-1xF/F7392-1 MCTOW 2900 lb. 3400 lb. 3000 lb. (s/n 1148 and on, or with SB 20-01-00 embodied) Noise Category: FAR 36 The certification basis of the Cirrus SR20 is Part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations effective February 1, 1965, as amended by 23-1 through 23-47, except some specified paragraphs are up to Amendment 23-52. The certification basis of the Cirrus SR22 is Part 23 of the FARs effective February 1, 1965, as amended by 23-1 through 23-53, except for §23.301 at Amendment 23-47 and three paragraphs being not applicable. The Cirrus is the first type certificated aircraft equipped with a ballistic recovery parachute (called Cirrus Airframe Parachute System CAPS) as basic equipment, and a Special Condition was applied by the FAA to this feature In addition, an equivalent level of safety finding was required by Cirrus to allow the provision of CAPS to be used in lieu of meeting stall recovery criteria. Another ELOS was made for the engine controls, similar to one granted in the past to Cessna. These have been reviewed and accepted by the CAA. This is an acceptable certification basis in accordance with NZCAR Part 21B Para §21.41, as FAR 23 is the basic standard for Normal Category Airplanes called up under Part 21 Appendix C. There are no non-compliances and no additional special conditions have been prescribed by the Director under §21.23. cant get onto faa website but caa nz refers... |
Tarq, don't worry about it, as a good mate mate says, "only the guilty justify."
|
I'm prepared to stand partially corrected, in that I have no refutable proof, but the above document doesn't actually prove your allegation in post #36.
Not having flown the aircraft, I can not know, but it would appear to me that it is likely to have been able to pass the spin certification, were that the chosen path for the manufacturer. Of course, since having the BRS negates (in this particular case)the requirement to have it certified for spin recovery, it would appear to me that the maker may have simply chosen to not certify it for same, and therefore does not necessarily reflect on the "spinnability" of the product. A spin recovery chute, much smaller and less costly, would have achieved the certification requirement if the aircraft couldn't. |
Originally Posted by VH-XXX
Tarq, don't worry about it, as a good mate mate says, "only the guilty justify."
I might have to use that. Sure I'll find a situation somewhere. Could easy be turned against one, if not a bit careful, though. Resolution for 2012: "Must be less argumentative." "Says who?" |
Lycoming will be having some interest in this one. The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters. :ugh: |
Why?
Good question! I'd LOVE to know the answer to that too Mick B! |
While a small percentage of Cirrus pilots may be able to successfully recover from an inadvertent spin, Cirrus contends that the far larger portion of pilots would not do so in a surprise departure spin situation. Cirrus has accordingly concluded, as a result of the further extensive flight test conducted pursuant to the JAA Study Group direction in April 2000, that in an inadvertent spin entry, time and altitude is too critical to allow for any pilot reaction except the simple and quick process of reaching for the CAPS handle and activating the system. Cirrus believes it is better to accept some airframe losses through CAPS activation when the airplane could have been flown away following a successful recovery, in order to save the lives of the far larger number of pilots who would not be able to successfully execute a spin recovery. |
I read something similar.
The Cirrus contention is probably valid, and appears to me to be as much to do with a failed training philosophy as an explanation as to why they elected to not bother putting the airframes through a spin certification test regime. Clearly if someone has allowed their aircraft to stall at low altitude and let it develop into a spin, there wasn't much hope in the first place, was there? I bet if those crew-members in Buffalo had a BRS (have to be a big 'un) they would have used it. (But maybe not, the SA disconnect might have precluded even that, by the time it got to that point.) Anyway, this is a bit OT. (Sorry.) So if you want to have the last word on this issue, go for it. |
As far as I could tell desmo, Cirrus simply tested that the chute would get the aircraft down safely following a spin, and to make life easy put that in the flight manual as the spin recovery. From my experience with the aircraft I would certainly attempt a normal spin recovery before blowing the chute (time/alt permitting) and to be honest I would expect higher than 50% chance of the aircraft recovering (no science, just a guess, it's much nicer in the stall than a lot of other spin approved aircraft)
While it may be true to an extent, I believe that the BRS is to help sell a new single engine aircraft to people who might be considering the safety of a twin vs single, so they can say "you don't have any risk of losing control if the engine blows compared to a twin, and even if you're over tiger county and it happens, you can just pop the parachute and it'll drop in nice and easy" |
Should be the prefered overwater single, in that case, - you would have time to get the raft ready to push out the door while on the way down..
|
It was probably floating quite happily and would do so for a long period if it was upright however sounds like it possibly flipped over as the landing was not stabilised due to the low altitude at which the chute was deployed, so in theory it would be a great aircraft to bob around in the ocean in whilst waiting for recovery (versus a high wing where you'd be sitting on the wing, in this case, you'd be sitting on the wing, but in a nice leather seat.
Now where is that metar again????? I'm beginning to sound like old Planky. |
To end all the uninformed opinions (like we get anything but on PPrune:rolleyes:)
From the SR22 Flight Manual The SR22 is not approved for spins, and has not been tested or certified for spin recovery characteristics. The only approved and demonstrated method of spin recovery is activation of the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (See CAPS Deployment, this section). Because of this, if the aircraft departs controlled flight, the CAPS must be deployed. While the stall characteristics of the SR22 make accidental entry into a spin extremely unlikely, it is possible. Spin entry can be avoided by using good airmanship: coordinated use of controls in turns, proper airspeed control following the recommendations of this Handbook, and never abusing the flight controls with accelerated inputs when close to the stall (see Stalls, Section 4). If, at the stall, the controls are misapplied and abused accelerated inputs are made to the elevator, rudder and/or ailerons, an abrupt wing drop may be felt and a spiral or spin may be entered. In some cases it may be difficult to determine if the aircraft has entered a spiral or the beginning of a spin. If time and altitude permit, the following procedures may be used to determine whether the aircraft is in a recoverable spiral/incipient spin or is unrecoverable and, therefore, has departed controlled flight. ■ WARNING ■ ■ In all cases, if the aircraft enters an unusual attitude from which recovery is not expected before ground impact, immediate deployment of the CAPS is required. ■ The minimum certified altitude loss for a CAPS deployment from a one-turn spin is 920 feet. Activation at higher altitudes provides enhanced safety margins for parachute recoveries. Do not waste time and altitude trying to recover from a spiral/spin before activating CAPS. 1. Power Lever ............................................................ .................IDLE 2. Control Yoke........................................................ .................Neutral 3. Rudder..........................Briskly Apply Opposite Yaw/Spin Direction ■ Note ■ If disorientation precludes visual determination of the direction of rotation, refer to the symbolic airplane in the turn coordinator. If the spiral/spin was entered while applying rudder, then the opposite rudder should be applied for recovery. 4. Just after the rudder reaches the stop, move the yoke briskly forward far enough to break the stall. Full down elevator may be required. Hold these control inputs until rotation stops. Premature relaxation of control inputs may prolong the recovery. 5. After rotation stops, neutralize rudder, and make a smooth recovery from the resulting dive. Add power as required. Be prepared for possible engine power loss if rotation causes fuel starvation. If the above steps do not recover the aircraft and/or it has been determined that the aircraft has departed controlled flight: 6. CAPS........................................................ ...........................Activate If it doesn't work, that's what the chute is for! PS-Channel Nine in Brisbane has just cottoned onto the story. Breaking news four days later.........:rolleyes: Apparently he broke the back window to get out. (The 1 foot square one behind the back seats??!??) Gotta love the media.:cool: |
You're not wrong, that would be quite an effort for Mr. M !
http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/back.jpgfor |
Yeah was Stevo; rear window escape my big fat bum. Try the left side window in the door after it wouldn't unlock...
650' agl cough splutter, fan stops, sweat starts, 1st thought is turn back, 2nd thought is bugger not gonna make it, 3rd thought is pull the bloody lever. Plane was still doing a reasonable forward speed on contact and flipped endish for end. Pulled the raft, floated until nearby boats got there. Minor neck/shoulder injuries and cuts from glass. Not saying that's what happened here but SLS had a history of fuel flow and starvation issues as well as CHT probs. Many a man-hour has been wasted fixing stupid mechanical "shouldn't-happens" on that biatch. I had a couple of no-gos in that thing thanks to fuel. I bloody wish they'd leave turbos to Kenworth Trucks and WRXies. Many lucky factors here, could have happened at 25,000' over the Outback or worse. I don't like to say here and you can't really argue but not too many would know the Cirrus better than him; that plane he actually owned. McDooz. |
Photo emailed to me by boatie mate at Hammo:
Looks like broken Rear Back/Row 2 window to me. (Would have attached photo but don't know how to from desktop). Apparently the aircraft was under water N/W of Dent Island, then towed to a beach by the floating chute. During the attempt to relocate to Shute Harbour, it got away and sank in 15-20 m of water. :ooh: |
it got away and sank in 15-20 m of water. |
If the 22 did not have a chute a controlled ditching [with the door unlatched] would have probably ended with an upright aircraft floating in the water long enough to get out.[ah-la "Sully"]:D
|
It's the age old golden question, who knows whether it would flip over on landing or not, the Cirrus is certainly not a STOL machine so chances are it would flip as it would hit pretty hard.
|
With fixed gear, reducing the forward speed is going lessen the chances of nosing over when ditching. I would have definitely used the chute.
|
I would have definitely used the chute That said, it's all a bit of a gamble. I'd prefer to back my own ability to get the plane down safely on the water. Some here prefer to pop the chute. At the end of the day, luck has the final say. Hopefully good, not bad! PS... The chute gives you a choice you didn't have before. A bit like a single verses a twin when one fails on take off. Do you or don't you continue? Choice can lead to a false sense of security. If in fact it existed to begin with! |
One opinion from Cirrus SR20 (and a bit about the SR22) -
If all else fails... pull the parachute. Unfortunately, as of July 2005 all of the folks who actually needed the parachute to save their lives are in fact dead. Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover, according to the test pilots. If the engine were to quit over water or the mountains at night, the parachute would be a nice feature indeed. However, mechanical failures are not a very common cause of small airplane crashes. Indeed, after 10 years and thousands of Cirruses operating worldwide, engine failure followed by parachute deployment has never occurred. By contrast it seems that quite a few of the folks who have pulled the parachute and lived would very likely have either not gotten into trouble if they'd been flying a Cessna or would have been able to recover and land at an airport. |
Quote: I would have definitely used the chute I would certainly have not! That said, it's all a bit of a gamble. I'd prefer to back my own ability to get the plane down safely on the water. I'm sure pilots who navigated using four course radio range were initially sceptical of pilots not having to be trained on its use once VORs and NDBs came on the scene. Todays pilot's will probably look on glass and say that tomorrow's pilots have no idea what a "proper" scanning technique on steam instruments was about. Just because a new technology makes things easier doesn't mean it should be ignored. I'm not saying that the recovery techniques for aircraft without this equipment shouldn't be taught (in fact as I already posted they are still a part of the emerg procs) and I do agree there will be a tendancy to resort to the easiest solution (pop the chute) but just because not everyone has access to this technology doesn't mean no-one should have it. You may refer to it as the new doctor killer, but I think this technology will result in exactly the opposite. It's up to initial training and flight reviews to make sure that retired medical professionals (gross generalisation, don't take offence) don't put themselves in a position to require the BRS in the first place. SUPERIOR PILOTS SHOULD USE THEIR SUPERIOR JUDGEMENT TO AVOID HAVING TO EXERCISE THEIR SUPERIOR SKILLS.:cool: No disrespect intended, but the SBK and MMB midairs may have turned out differently with a BRS. That kind of situation is what prompted its initial inclusion for the SR's. |
Pulling the chute means aircraft is a right-off,means collect insurance,buy another aircraft!!
|
Pulling the chute means aircraft is a right-off,means collect insurance,buy another aircraft!! |
The deployment doesn't cause the damage.
Landing under the chute is equivalent to a drop of about 10/13' for the sr20/sr22. There have been instances of hang-ups in trees that were repairable. Water may give a similar result. Who cares about the aircraft if you survive?:) |
2,500 fpm descent rate was a figure being thrown around.
|
All wrong. Do some research; make a phone call...
Landing with CAPS in an SR22 is equivalent to a freefall from 2.4m (8') at MTOW in a nil-forward-speed situation. The SR20 is equivalent to a 1.8m (6') freefall. The pure activation of CAPS causes no permanent damage to the airframe at all; the straps are designed to tear out of the composite shell cleanly. The actual re-setting of CAPS costs about $35,000aud at Cirrus Archerfield; the bulk of that cost is the supply of the new CAPS unit and cover (bearing in mind it's a solid-fuel rocket). Install takes about 20 hours. This of course does not include transport or repairing damage on landing or the original reason CAPS was activated. McDooz. |
One opinion from Cirrus SR20 (and a bit about the SR22) - If all else fails... pull the parachute. Unfortunately, as of July 2005 all of the folks who actually needed the parachute to save their lives are in fact dead. By contrast it seems that quite a few of the folks who have pulled the parachute and lived would very likely have either not gotten into trouble if they'd been flying a Cessna or would have been able to recover and land at an airport. And by analyzing the decision chains in all Cirrus fatal accidents, about 60 people have died in 30 fatal accidents (more than half of the total of 56) where the accident pilot faced a situation similar to a successful parachute pull -- but didn't pull. To me, that is the real tragedy. When Cirrus pilots need it, they don't use it and they die. Even when they have time -- up to 30 to 45 seconds in a 9- or 15-turn spin. Unfortunately, too many people opine on the best case outcomes as if there was no choice and conveniently ignore the worst case outcomes. Fortunately, Steve deployed the parachute and survived. Since his airplane has CAPS, he had the choice. Cheers Rick |
If the engine were to quit over water or the mountains at night, the parachute would be a nice feature indeed. However, mechanical failures are not a very common cause of small airplane crashes. Indeed, after 10 years and thousands of Cirruses operating worldwide, engine failure followed by parachute deployment has never occurred. At Elkin, NC, USA, in June 2009, a catastrophic engine failure at 6,000 feet caused oil to obscure the windscreen and the pilot elected to deploy the CAPS parachute and landed in a field. A piston broke through the cylinder wall. At Patterson, LA, USA, in Dec 2008, at night, when the pilot reported engine problems, deployed CAPS at high altitude and landed in a canal. Interestingly, no accident report has ever appeared. At Turriaco, Italy, in Nov 2008, a pilot diverted after a missed approach and exhausted his fuel, was about to land short in trees and pulled parachute handle at low-altitude. The circumstances under which people in Cirrus airplanes have survived difficult situations with the CAPS parachute covers a very impressive and wide range of scenarios. If you fly with one, you owe yourself and your passengers the benefit of planning when to use CAPS. Cheers Rick |
2,500 fpm descent rate was a figure being thrown around. This has been observed by examining the recorded flight data of an accident airplane during the Cirrus parachute deployment at Luna, NM, USA in 2006. Cheers Rick |
All wrong. Do some research; make a phone call... Landing with CAPS in an SR22 is equivalent to a freefall from 2.4m (8') at MTOW in a nil-forward-speed situation. The SR20 is equivalent to a 1.8m (6') freefall. (Not what happens on pprune much btw:hmm:) SR20 POH says... CAPS Deployment The Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) should be activated in the event of a life-threatening emergency where CAPS deployment is determined to be safer than continued flight and landing. ■ WARNING ■ CAPS deployment is expected to result in loss of the airframe and, depending upon adverse external factors such as high deployment speed, low altitude, rough terrain or high wind conditions, may result in severe injury or death to the occupants. Because of this, CAPS should only be activated when any other means of handling the emergency would not protect the occupants from serious injury. ■ CAUTION ■ Expected impact in a fully stabilized deployment is equivalent to a drop from approximately 10 feet. ■ Note ■ Several possible scenarios in which the activation of the CAPS would be appropriate are discussed in Section 10 Safety Information, of this Handbook. These include: Mid-air collision Structural failure Loss of control Landing in inhospitable terrain Pilot incapacitation All pilots should carefully review the information on CAPS activation and deployment in Section 10 before operating the airplane. Expected impact in a fully stabilized deployment is equivalent to a drop from approximately 13 feet. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:13. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.