Cirrus Chute Pull, 4 Survive landing in trees, 22/07/12

[007helicopter]

007H

I wonder if half the reason for all the attention this aircraft gets is because it is the first to have a chute as standard.
having that chute brings in a different mentality to flying and different option potentials.

I think it gets a lot of attention because it was the first and I assume still only with the chute as a standard option, plus was different in so many ways with all the other features of glass etc, I suppose also because it is also considered an expensive aircraft by spam can standards it is natural to assume a fair percentage of owners have more money than hours (read sense) although I can honestly say this is not my experience with the vast majority of owners I have personally met (which is 100's)

[007helicopter]

So, and very critically, a Cirrus IS NOT certified as able to recover from a spin in the same way that, say, a C172 would be.

And this has to change the mindset of a pilot flying a Cirrus, compared to one flying, say, a C172. You would not try and recover it from a spin, you'd pull the handle.

Genghis my understanding is that the Cirrus recovers from a spin pretty much like any other aircraft. It was not certified for this because there was no need to pay for this during development due to the chute.

I personally would not try and recover from a spin, I admit I have never trained for this and probably never will.

If I or any other Pilot find ourselves in an unintentional spin then I believe we have already failed to maintain proper control of the aircraft and made a gross error, in that case safest option in a Cirrus when control is lost is pull the chute.

In another aircraft if a pilot is fully competent to recover from a spin then I would bet they would probably never find themselves in an unintentional spin in the first place.

The guys that find themselves in an unintentional spin are as I understand it past the point of recovery and will likely die along with their pax as a result.

[007helicopter]

I think 007 though has although not meaning to has made a point about the mentality of some pilots.

There are some that treat the chute as a bonus and there are others that see it as a get out of jail free card that means the don't have to do normal "airmanship" The ones that see it as a bonus join the additional optional training/idea storming forums and then see to have a very healthy outlook and the others which are the ones that give the rest a bad name end up as a darwin satistic.

Jock not sure where you think I fit in this category but the point about pilots with a healthy outlook to training and safety and those who give us a bad name I think are pretty evenly spread across the whole spectrum of types flown.

In my personal experience I have generally observed some pretty shocking, shoddy and terrible decision making in other types than I have in fact in my experience of Cirrus Pilots that are known to me.

I just do not see evidence of the chute in the Cirrus making pilots make more reckless stupid decisions because "no problem, if it all goes t1ts up i will just pull"

If anything in the Cirrus community I see more on going voluntary training than any other type I have personally been involved with, ie Piper, Cessna, Robin, Beech.

Have you actually met any Cirrus Pilot that does have the attitude and characteristics you are talking about?

[peterh337]

A couple of interesting questions might be:

1) Why haven't Cirrus done some informal spin testing and put the recovery video on Youtube? It would stop these never ending debates about whether it actually recovers, or whether there is something dodgy about its behaviour in unbalanced flight around Vs.

2) Why haven't other big-name manufacturers copied Cirrus and fitted the chute?

[Pace]

007H

I do not think the word reckless is correct "enhanced confidence"?? If you walked out onto a Hotel balcony 20 stories up and there was a safety barrier/rail around the Balcony you would feel secure even looking down over the edge.
Take away that safety barrier/rail so the concrete balcony finished with a straight drop to the streets below and how far towards the edge would you go?
Would you stand on the edge with a 20 story drop below and look down?
Those who say the chute would not lure you into a false sense of security are not being realistic.
Say Jack was a pilot who had medical issues but was passed as fit to fly on drugs which controlled his condition. Would the fact that he had a chute instill more confidence in him to solo fly than if the aircraft had no chute?
The pilot who flies at night would he have more confidence doing so in a cirrus or a 172.
Flying in an area of cloud which could or could not hold icing would the pilot feel more confident in the Cirrus or 172? if neither had anti/deice fitted?
So it goes on!!!

The chute MUST encourage pilots to fly in conditions where the use of the chute is more likely to occur.
More disciplined pilots will stick to the limits they would impose on themselves minus a chute but many would not.
One Cirrus crashed under the chute when he incurred icing in IMC. How do you statistically prove that he would not be there in a 172?
You cannot but it does not take rocket science to work out that the pilot of a Cirrus will be lured into flying in conditions he would be wary of in a chuteless aircraft.
If I gave you two similar cars and told you to drive them through the center of London but one had explosives fitted to each corner of the car? which would you be more cautious driving? The one with explosives where you know a collision even slight would cause your death or the one without explosives?
You would give a wider berth to other cars and obstructions in the one with explosives and would be far more cautious driving that car.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace as i said earlier i would certainly feel more comfortable and more willing to fly in certain circumstances with, than without a chute. Night is the best example. I see nothing wrong in that any more than bolting on another engine.

Would i fly at night in a sep - very very reluctantly these days, there would need to be a pressing reason, in a cirrus - yes, but i admit not with total comfort, in a twin, yes and with complete comfort.

[007helicopter]

A couple of interesting questions might be:

1) Why haven't Cirrus done some informal spin testing and put the recovery video on Youtube? It would stop these never ending debates about whether it actually recovers, or whether there is something dodgy about its behaviour in unbalanced flight around Vs.

2) Why haven't other big-name manufacturers copied Cirrus and fitted the chute?

Peter I do not have a clue to either of those questions but I do not really think Cirrus give a monkeys if people do debate about the Cirrus spinning.

Interesting video here of a Cirrus test using CAPS to recover from a spin

[Pace]

Fuji

Do not worry you have convinced me to the merits of the chute The only question is still over when it should or should not be used?
I would be concerned if any technology was used to plug gaps in basic flying skills and like the second engine in a twin that is not the answer to all evils but another option to add to the armory.
The Chute like the second engine gives you more options, with more options come more choices! with more choices come more options to make the wrong choice.

Pace

[007helicopter]

I do not think the word reckless is correct "enhanced confidence"??

Pace I pretty much agree with you.

I would also say and agree I have "enhanced confidence" with the Cirrus and have done very long flights over very inhospitable terrain, flying with cloud base down to the ground , night, over Mountains etc etc so yes it does make some of those risks now acceptable to me that I personally would not do in 172 or similar.

[007helicopter]

You cannot but it does not take rocket science to work out that the pilot of a Cirrus will be lured into flying in conditions he would be wary of in a chuteless aircraft.

Yes I guess so, but hopefully for most in a planned and calculated way.

[Pace]

007H

That clip had some worrying implications? One the aircraft under the chute had quite a forward speed. If those winds held to the ground on top of the vertical impact would be quite a horizontal impact.
At certain angles in slow flight I was also concerned with tangling of cables and lines especially in a spin recovery??

Sadly looking at the spin I feel the aircraft would have easily recovered with a competant and well trained in spinning pilot?

The spin was nose down and conventional.

The very case for spin training and proper pilot training where there was no need for the use of the chute other than to plug gaps in pilot ability.

Always sad to see an aircraft which will be destroyed when there was no need! Must also be a worry to the insurance companies seeing an aircraft destroyed because of lack of proper pilot training.

For me that was an example of when NOT to use the chute

Pace

[007helicopter]

Sadly looking at the spin I feel the aircraft would have easily recovered with a competant and well trained in spinning pilot?

Pace, yes it would, this was a test to specifically test the chute in a spin, it was not an accident.

[007helicopter]

Always sad to see an aircraft which will be destroyed when there was no need! Must also be a worry to the insurance companies seeing an aircraft destroyed because of lack of proper pilot training.

I think after a decade, 5000 air frames, millions of hours in the fleet insurers have got an angle on the Cirrus risk and are quite happy to insure it for a reasonable price.

Again regarding training I believe any well trained Pilot should not get into a spin in the first place. If they do it is probably over in terms of having the skill and presence of mind to get out of it.

[Pace]

007H

You stated in an earlier post that you had never been trained in spin recovery and would not know what to do?
I would recommend you take yourself off to an aerobatic instructor in an aerobatic machine and run through a number of out of the box manouvers ???
Apart from being a lot of fun you would gain a lot

Training to avoid is obviously very important but sadly crashes occur when avoid does not work and a full stall, spiral dive, spin is entered inadvertently. PC 12 crash at altitude?

Pace

[007helicopter]

1) Why haven't Cirrus done some informal spin testing and put the recovery video on Youtube? It would stop these never ending debates about whether it actually recovers, or whether there is something dodgy about its behaviour in unbalanced flight around Vs.

There has been a Cirrus formal spin recovery testing, here is a short extract from the report. If any one wants it PM me your email as it is a 21 page PDF

1. All spins conducted at gross weight.
2. Also evaluated accelerated entries, 30 degree banked turn entries, and effects of ailerons against
the spin direction.

ii. Results. The aircraft recovered within one turn in all cases examined. Recovery controls
were to reduce power, neutralize ailerons, apply full rudder opposite to spin, and to apply
immediate full forward (nose down) pitch control. Altitude loss from spin entry to
recovery ranged from 1,200 – 1,800 feet. Detail results can be found in the above
referenced reports.

[007helicopter]

007H

You stated in an earlier post that you had never been trained in spin recovery and would not know what to do?
I would recommend you take yourself off to an aerobatic instructor in an aerobatic machine and run through a number of out of the box manouvers ???
Apart from being a lot of fun you would gain a lot

Pace, correct, I have never trained for this and as stated earlier probably never will.

Did they not cut it from the syllabus because it killed more as a training exercise than it saved as a recovery technique?

Aero's really do not appeal to me in anyway, just not my thing I guess, I would rather invest in a different 5 hours of training

[Pace]

It was removed from the syllabus for good reason that firstly the incorrect aircraft were being used for spin training and secondly often the instructors were not competent at teaching spin training or any other "out of the box manouvers"

That does not stop the PPL taking himself off for some proper training and investing in a few hours in an aerobatic aircraft with an aerobatic instructor.
You never know those few hours may just save your life, will make a pilot more confident in handling an aircraft and will be a lot of fun.
It really worries me when the chute is portrayed as an answer to every evil.
Like MJ maybe I was brought up in the old school of flying but forget basic handling skills at your peril!!

Pace

[englishal]

The spin thing is a red herring and irrelevant. Absolutely no twin that I know of is approved for spins, for example. Nor are B747s, A300's or any other airline, turboprop or whatever.

Many SEPs in the normal catagory are not certified for spins, and some not at all. As pointed out, if someone gets into an unintentional spin, then they have already gone beyond the bounds of normal flight. This has happened hundreds of times in non cirrus aeroplanes and people have been killed as a result.

I am sure it is partly the "Green Eyed Monster" that causes so much arguing about the Cirrus BRS, they are attractive, fast, capable aeroplanes. I expect some have been bought by rich, well to do, inexperienced pilots, who have killed themselves, but equally many are flown by very experienced pilots. Didn't the Bonanza have the nick name the "Forked tail doctor killer"? The Cirrus is no different, just a modern version and I don't think the Bonanza is any more dangerous than any other high performance SEP.

[Pace]

Englishal

Just because an aircraft is not approved for spinning does not mean that they cannot be recovered from a spin! The same goes for twins. It's the altitude you have to recover which is relevant and as such the chute is a good addition for fairly low spins but even the chute maybe too low !
I do not think airlines are a good example as some are fly by wire and fitted with all manner of things like stick shakers/ pushers etc.
Oh well maybe that will be the next Cirrus addition ?maybe we won't even be required to hold a PPL and a basic car driving licence will be all that is required to motor around the skies ?

Pace

[007helicopter]

That does not stop the PPL taking himself off for some proper training and investing in a few hours in an aerobatic aircraft with an aerobatic instructor.
You never know those few hours may just save your life, will make a pilot more confident in handling an aircraft and will be a lot of fun.
It really worries me when the chute is portrayed as an answer to every evil.
Like MJ maybe I was brought up in the old school of flying but forget basic handling skills at your peril!!

Pace I am not being awkward but I personally do not agree spin recovery is basic handling, for you it is, when you were taught it may well have been basic handling and that is ingrained in your thinking and fair enough.

If the FAA deem it ok to remove from the PPL sylabus, and certify a Cirrus as not requiring spin recovery testing because a BRS is a viable option, then frankly that is good enough for me.

I think the most likely and frequent time for a spin in a Cirrus is base to final turn at incorrect speed resulting in a spin that is not recoverable by chute or traditional methods as to low and is usually lethal.