Cirrus SR22 Chute Pull - (Post landing Video) Birmingham Alabama 6th Oct 2012

[Rory Dixon]

I think, BPF has hit the nail with his first statement. The whole discussion somehow reminds me of the (by now fortunately pretty much terminated) discussion about the use of GPS. There are the old guys who truly believe, that everything is fine the way they do it. And there are other ones who can imagine the possibilities and start thinking out of the box. Because sometimes new technology needs other approaches than the existing stuff. There is a lot of data available proving 007s SOPs. The fact, that (obviously) many people have not really done their homework, have not searched for the available knowledge, and have not started to inform themselves, does not erase this knowledge. If you are really interested, get informed!

The second point from BPF is, I believe, also quite true, but is wrong in being limited to the Cirrus. It holds true for other airplane with comparable use, therefore not a Cirrus specific problem, but a problem of todays training environment (what BPF has also stated).

[Fuji Abound]

I will add that i have flown quite a range of types and so i feel able to make some comparison. I have also intentionally stalled the cirrus on more than a few occasions. I have found no evidence that its characteristics are exceptional, it provides more than enough indication of an imminent stall, infact more than most because its low speed handling really lacks feedback, it will drop a wing but not violently or unexpectedly and it will recover predictably from a stall.

I also really dont think the cirrus should be portrayed as the rocket ship it isnt. Everything is relative. Compared with a 152 it will seem amazing, sophisticated and complex. On the other hand it will seem none of these for anyone with some time in faster singles. For a twin pilot it will appear very basic. In many ways it is simple. Two levers, and one set at that. Fixed u/c. Other than the avionics its very simple. Even the avionics are over done. Yes for ifr flight they need a thorough understanding and this takes time. For vfr flight a few hours is really more than enough for a pilot with a reasonable background.

If a cirrus catches you out it does so because like any good touring aircraft, and there are many, it encourages you to go places, it encourages you to fly reasonably quickly, and therefore it equally can result in the pilot falling behind the aircraft or events going on outside. No different than many faster touring aircraft. When things go wrong they go wrong for all the usual reasons.

That said for the lower time pilot there is plenty there to cause you problems and some characteristics that will be new and different. It will bite. However i am just not sure it will bite any more or less than a lot of other high performance singles.

The chute is different. I think it will take time to develop a full understanding of its best use and i think the way in which pilots are trained with regards the chute has and still is evolving. As i have often said in the interesting discussion i have had with pace the chute gives the pilot an option and an option in potentially a life threatening situation. In some ways in these situations options arent good. Far better to follow the flow diagram and the last box tell us now pull the handle. I dont see it will ever be like that because i dont think the chute can ever provide absolute certainty. It will also mean there will always be discussion about if you had chosen the other option the result would have been different / better and of course we will never know. Pilots are different. There will be those who fly lots of different types, regularly practise pfls, and are confident in their ability to select and land in a good field. There will be those that have only ever flown a cirrus and havent done a pfl in years. Their assessment will inevitably be very different of when to use the chute.

Life is full of uncertainties and the chute just gives the pilot another to wrestle with. However far better the uncertainty because the evidence suggests it is a rather nice option to have. Moreover if you use it as much as some might try, try as they might it will be impossible to prove you selected the wrong option!

[goldeneaglepilot]

Rory Dixon; My quotes were from Philip Greenspun - he is a very well respected pilot and Cirrus owner.

Cirrus SR20 (and a bit about the SR22)

I searched very hard to try to find any official report of the claimed 60 spins during flight testing for EASA certification, please explain why the type certificate shows the CRI B2 comments with reference to spinning.

I think that the Cirrus is a great aeroplane, but cant help but wonder if some have now gained confidence into entering flight conditions that they would not have entered had the CAPS system not been in place.

Equally I note that Cirrus advocates use of the CAPS system as a last resort, yet it would seem some regard it as a first line SOP.

Without doubt the CAPS system has saved lives, but had it not been there then how many times would the pilot have ventured into the flight conditions that required its use. The deployment over Oxfordshire would seem to be one of those times.

Air Accidents Investigation: Cirrus SR20, N470RD

[Fuji Abound]

Gep

I have read his report. Its an opinion and as with any opinion there are parts with which i agree and others with which i dont. However i am very surprised with regards to his comments about the feedback from the sidestick particularly during slow flight. I dont recognise his description.

As to spinning reading the easa report the point is made that pushing the stick rapidly forward when the aircraft spins nose down is not naturally intuitive. The report also cites the lack of spin training. I find it very difficult to conclude reading the report how on earth some jump to the conclusion once a spin is entered it is virtually impossible to recover. The evidence suggests very differently, while recognising that such is spin training these days and because of the particular spin characteristics of the cirrus most pilots will not make a good job of recovering.

I wonder how many pilots would recover an aerobat or a slingsby from a spin? A fa200 spins very nicely but nose down. I found it a bit disconcerting and i have often wondered if a cirrus presents in the same way. I am not intending to find out.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Hi Fuji - Do you have a link to the EASA spinning report for the Cirrus? I could not find one,

The spin recovery you describe is not that different from the one in the POH for the Terrohawk.

As an example of spins:

You Tube

With reference to the Aerobat or Slingsby, both recover very easily, the Slingsby recovers happily from both upright or inverted spins - providing you apply the correct controls and procedure.

I have taught many people spins and recovery, most people soon get to grips with the techniques (or are sick!!)

[mad_jock]

who fly week in week out and maybe do 100's of approaches each year it is easier for you to stay current and gain a big bag of experience and better skills.

Thats fair enough comment usually I am about 20-25 a week. Actually handling half that although recently I have had a big lump of training to do so the baby FO's get more than half the approaches. Which is more work than if I just flew them myself.

And currently sitting at just over 600 approaches with 3 months to run to the end of my FTL year. Out of that quarter of them will be visual approaches though. And down to mins and rvr limits maybe 50 a year.

BTW the biggest problem with inexperenced instrument pilots is that they fly the plane way to much. Set the machine up and let it do the flying. Don't annoy it with huge control inputs and multiple power changes.


A debrief line which has been used to me in the past and I will admit I have used as well.

"well we arrived despite your best efforts to prevent us"

And I am far from perfect thursday day 6 sector 8 of a 13 hour duty day starting at 5am with a split, pitch black and snowing with hills all about I boxed that NPA loc approach to the limits, my airspeed was up and down like fiddlers elbow and then procceded to rape the runway.

The FO just said on the taxi back in with me cursing under my breath at my self.

"what you needed to do with that one was set your power and attitude and use smaller control inputs"

"so why didn't you take it off me then?"

"sod that, it was horrible" was the reply.


Just had to agree and laugh and go and do the walk of shame and apologise to the pax.

Human performance factors also make a huge difference to your performance on the day. Day one of a roster even with the split duty and I would have looked as if I knew what I was doing instead of the utter garbage that I did.

(Just to note we can work a max of 7 days then 3 days off but more normally it max 6 days then 2 days off so if you see folk post day x its the number of days they are into a block of flying after a day off)

[007helicopter]

Link to Cirrus EASA Spinning report, strangely found on Peters web site here

http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/...spinreport.pdf


Concludes all 60 spin's tested recovered within one turn within a range of 1200-1800ft

Also concludes that Cirrus Cirrus is making AFM changes to clarify loss of control response and CAPS deployment.

[007helicopter]

Rory Dixon; My quotes were from Philip Greenspun - he is a very well respected pilot and Cirrus owner.

GEP Maybe he is but just goes to prove you should not believe everything you find in Google.

Without doubt the CAPS system has saved lives, but had it not been there then how many times would the pilot have ventured into the flight conditions that required its use. The deployment over Oxfordshire would seem to be one of those times.

Are the accident reports for all types not littered with fatal's of VFR into IMC, I have seen no evidence this is higher than average in the Cirrus than other similar non BRS equipped type's.

Badly prepared pilots continue to launch into conditions which exceed there ability and die, always have done and always will.

[MungoP]

This harks back to a similar debate during WW1 when it was argued that giving pilots parachutes might cause them to abandon their machines prematurely. The fact remains that two people are walking around today who otherwise would be being mourned by their loved ones and that has to be the prevailing view...
Somehow we need to get across to low time pilots that the difference between operating in IMC during training exercises and doing it for real is much greater than you think.

[goldeneaglepilot]

An interesting report.

In summary: It talks of the spin charecteristics not being fully tested as required for JAA certification WITHOUT the CAPS system being fitted.

I do note the one comment in the report:

It must be assumed that the SR20 has some unrecoverable characteristics. In the SR20 proper execution of recovery control movements is necessary to affect recovery, and aircraft may become unrecoverable with incorrect control inputs.

I also note the remedy suggested by Cirrus:

Proposed Procedure. Cirrus has reached strong conclusion that any spin recovery guidance in the AFM distracts pilot from immediately activating CAPS system when the aircraft has departed controlled flight. Cirrus is removing existing references to spin recovery in its current AFM. The clear AFM procedure will be to activate CAPS system in the event that control is lost. The new proposed procedure can be found in Appendix 4.

[Rory Dixon]

GEP, 007 and Fuji have answered, I don't need to repeat that.

I think that the Cirrus is a great aeroplane, but cant help but wonder if some have now gained confidence into entering flight conditions that they would not have entered had the CAPS system not been in place.

007 has also replied to that. It is a fact that the rate of fatal accidents in Cirrus isn't much different than in other high performance airplanes. So obviously not. Or do you have any other proof of your guess?

What the Cirrus has NOT delivered (on first sight) is to be more safe than other planes, despite the safety features it has. Well, this is something interesting, but doesn't wonder. People like you and many others, including the normal CFIs, believe a Cirrus should be handled like any other plane. Don't use the safety features, only if its to late, that is the mantra. I would expect no change in the safety of an airplane with this approach.

The interesting thing is, there is evidence clearly showing that a different approach to flying this airplane makes it safer. This approach is the one 007 has extensively elucidated on. The group of pilots accepting this approach has a rate of fatel accidents which is much lower (I think it was in the range of factor 3, if I recall right) than of the Cirrus pilots flying the old way.

So new technology sometime necessitates new thinking.

[englishal]

It must be assumed that the SR20 has some unrecoverable characteristics. In the SR20 proper execution of recovery control movements is necessary to affect recovery, and aircraft may become unrecoverable with incorrect control inputs.

Isn't this the same for all aeroplanes? If you spin a C150 and you use "incorrect control inputs", I doubt it would recover - example if you held the rudder all the way in and held the yoke all the way back as your "spin recovery" then I doubt very much the aeroplane would recover.

[goldeneaglepilot]

My take on the statement is that incorrect control input may place the aircraft beyond recovery through further use of the controls.

On another note, 1200' to recover from a spin (from input of anti spin control) is a lot to drop. By way of an example, a Terrohawk in a fully developed spin could be recovered in 600', a Pitts S2A in 500'.

[A and C]

Goldeneaglepilot

Your statement about the damage to the wing roots is not backed up by the picture, it depends what the wheel spat hit and how hard.

Splicing a GRP spar boom is common practice in GRP repair so even damage that would write off a metal aircraft is unlikely to write off a GRP aircraft.

As I said in a post above I had seen nothing on the Utube clip that made me think that the aircraft could not be fixed, I am not saying that it is not beyond economic repair but that I can't see a reason to write the aircraft off on the basis of pictures.

[goldeneaglepilot]

A&C, My comment was directed about the hole in the wing skin. We looked at buying a SR22 at one point and what impressed me was the degree of structural strength in the design, not from just the spar but from the clever use of tapered layup techniques in the skin itself. From my own companies experience on other such damage (damage puncturing the skin in or near the root area of the wing, certainly in the first third of the wing) is often uneconomical to repair and a new panel is often the cheapesrt option.

You are right, its a question of economics for the insurance company.

[A and C]

Nothing about the wing skin looks bad enough to give me any reason that it can't be fixed, it would be the internal damage that I would want to see.

The other thing I would like to take a look at would be the pilots seat support structure, the area below the seat is off limits for the instalation of any equipment presumably because the seat is designed to progressively collapse into this area, the deformation of that area would indicate to me a very hard impact that I would not see the airframe recovering without uneconomic amounts of work.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by Rory Dixon

It is a fact that the rate of fatal accidents in Cirrus isn't much different than in other high performance airplanes.

It is not a "fact" that the accident rate isn't "much different" than other high performance singles. The true measure of accident rates has to measure both risk and exposure.

For example if you looked at the the number of accidents versus the fleet size of Cessna 182's in Alaska you would find it is 5 times higher then the total accident rate per 100,000 hrs for similar aircraft in the Continental US. The obvious reason is the extremely demanding flying conditions in Alaska compared to the lower 48.

Similarly if you have a higher proportion of low time pilots combined with a higher proportion of hours flown in IFR weather , which is the case for the Cirrus, then you are comparing apples and oranges if you are measuring it against other aircraft. The only "fact" in the question of Cirrus accidents is that there has been 38 accidents involving a chute pull where everyone survived that would otherwise have resulted in certain death for most/all of the aircraft occupants.

There been numerous other accidents where the chute was not used and the outcome was tragic.

Obviously continued efforts should be made to reduce the number of accidents that resulted from poor piloting, but for me the bottom line is simple.

If the engine fails and a cause check will not get it going again, pull the chute.

If you have lost control of the aircraft, pull the chute.

[Pace]

The chute is a major first for a standard production aircraft! A chute which will lower the aircraft and its passengers to the ground.
The possibilities are huge and I for one would love to see the chute as standard fit in other SEP aircraft.
For me there are two issues! Without doubt the security of having a chute will lure pilots into conditions they would not normally venture into.
As stated I would not be comfortable flying cross country at night in a single piston.
Flying a Cirrus would encourage me to fly at night etc.

The second issue is when to use it? I feel there could be a complete course on that fact alone.
Everyone here has presumed zero wind conditions and a vertical descent.
Many times in the past I have flown singles in 30 to 50 kt winds.
Pulling the chute in those situations will not only mean a high descent rate but the possibility of slamming hard into an object in the horizontal mode.
We have all seen the effects of a 30 mph (25kt) car crash.
Yet for the flying aircraft wind is the saviour as into wind landings reduce the ground speed to sometimes very low speeds.

So I feel reading the comments here that there is a mass of confusion and lack of direction on when and when not to pull the chute and no or little manuafacture direction or even authority direction on the matter.
The whole approach to the chute comes over as wishy washy and amateurish rather than a properly researched and directed SOP

It seems to be left to individual opinion which is not good enough on such a major development which goes away from traditional training and procedures.


Pace

[A and C]

I have to agree with Pace, about the surface wind being a major factor to take into account when deciding if a parachute deployment is the best option.

A forced landing into a 30kt head wind would very quickly result in the ground speed being very low after touchdown, being dragged along by the chute at 30kt untill the aircraft snags in something big enough to stop it sounds a little risky to me!

Some on this forum would tell you the SR20/22 is a bit of a rocket ship, having operated out of an airfield with a TORA of 500m I can tell you that it is just another SEP in performance terms.

[mad_jock]

But you see personally for me I wouldn't want to be carting the weight of the chute around in a SEP.

For me the risk it migates isn't worth the cost.

If I was wanting flying in WX or terrain which required me to say the risk is too high in a single I would use a twin or get the train or more likely go to the pub.