Cirrus 22 Crash - 1 Dead. Crisis.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ireland
Age: 44
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis,
Can't cut and paste from the online SR22 POH, but here's the link:
SR22 POH
Right click on the link above and select 'Save Target As'... I find it's the best way.
Confab
Can't cut and paste from the online SR22 POH, but here's the link:
SR22 POH
Right click on the link above and select 'Save Target As'... I find it's the best way.
Confab
Last edited by Confabulous; 8th Feb 2005 at 20:03.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Peoples' Champion!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a current aerobatic pilot, I'd certainly be very interested to go fly and stall one!
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ireland
Age: 44
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. . . . . .
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
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
(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.
Last edited by Confabulous; 8th Feb 2005 at 22:48.
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
(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
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ireland
Age: 44
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
which says that, although spinning is prohibited, recovery is easy. Very reassuring for a DA40 pilot.
Confab
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)
which says that, although spinning is prohibited, recovery is easy. Very reassuring for a DA40 pilot.
Confab
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
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
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
Peoples' Champion!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ireland
Age: 44
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Confabulous; 9th Feb 2005 at 23:22.
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
G
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This JAA document 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.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Essex
Age: 54
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.