sr22
 

"Because unrecoverable spins may be encountered during initial aircraft stall/spin flight tests, spin test aircraft are commonly equipped with emergency spin-recovery parachute systems, which can be deployed to terminate the spinning motion and reduce the aircraft angle of attack to below stall conditions. The parachute is then jettisoned by the pilot and conventional flight resumed."
— Concept to Reality (contains some photos of spin-recovery parachutes)

If you know pilots who have recovered from fully developed spins in these aircraft without deploying the chutes then I take my hat off to them. They should be working for Cirrus.

Well, I do know pilots who have recovered a Cirrus from a fully developed spin. Additionally, Cirrus has done that themselves. They were required to do a subset of the full spin matrix for European certification.

Snow at the Cirrus Factory
 

And I was a bit hacked off with the snow we had, these guys really get it in Duluth - Pic taken from Cirrus Facebook page, Sternone dont worry I have allready let them know you wont be a fan and I think they may just about get over it Login | Facebook but there for anyone else interested


http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos...0_488817_n.jpg

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos...9_556691_n.jpg

As Paul points out, you have been reliably misinformed. Cirrus built the plane to avoid spins and incorporate the parachute as a safety feature of last resort.
Those performance singles will not recover and protect the pilot.

Unless you know of some technology that imparts a sixth sense to the airplane! :E

Only an attentive and skilled pilot can do that. And only if there is sufficient altitude in which to effect the recovery.

Cheers
Rick

Semantics. He obviously meant "can be recovered."

I just stumbled across this thread, but randomly happened to be looking at the NTSB website at the same time (was watching Air Crash Investigation) and decided to look up fatal crashes in the Cirrus SR20.

What I found was quite interesting was that there is not a single fatal crash (other than a test flight in 1999) that the NTSB did not determine was caused by pilot error.

In short, 1 out of the 19 recorded fatal accidents was not simply pilot error and that was a test flight, so arguably should not be taken into account in the same way.

I find it disturbing that some posters seem to think the penalty for making a pilot error should be death. There is no question that some what would other wise be certain fatal accidents were turned into ones where everyone opened the door and walked away, only because of the CAP system.

Personally I think the only real problem with Cirrus is that the training system has not kept up with the airframe and in particular the avionics technology in the aircraft. So you either get

1) An instructor who turns off all the technology and forces the pilot to navigate it like a 80 kt Tiger moth with a map and a stop watch, because he/she has no clue how to effectively use the impressive technology, or

2) So much emphasis is placed on the magic TV screens that basic hands and feet skills are never fully developed or practiced.

I think this engenders mixed feelings. Human beings by nature are creatures of habit. If you install an end if the road fail safe system, then the human syche, IMHO, will eventually rely on this, and MAY wander into territory that thinks, I am ok regardless.

It may be that necessary skills are then not honed, with an over reliance on either the technology, or the Fail Safe System. If the aeroplane in question, has a spin problem, then, again in my view, is that really safe?

I have not flown a Cirrus, nor been privy to be a passenger, and individuals that I know, who have one, praise them.

However, was the fixing of a parachute recovery system in the Cirrus, a nice to have, or a necessary requirement?

The Cirrus meets all of the FAR Part 23 certification requirements. It is Not approved for spins like every other aircraft of its class, however aircraft not approved for spins still have to demonstrate they can be recovered from a one turn spin with average technique.

I think Cirrus was smart. They realized the only way to ensure the aircraft would get the benefits of the chute was to make it non optional. If pilots had a choice, the luddite component of the pilot community (of which there are more than a few evident in this thread ;) )would not have bought it. Therefore it was included in the type certificate, making it mandatory.

I think one of the big fallacies of the argument about the Cirrus is all the electronic magic makes it "Easy". I could not disagree more. To fully utiltize the capability of its systems requires a lot of study and practice. It represents a significant amount of effort, however the payoff, particularly in the latest Garmin Perspective fit, is situational awareness and navigational accuracy that makes a mid 1990's Airbus cockpit look stone age.

Too many Cirrus pilots are not making the effort to learn the avionics and end up in a technology assisted accident.

To fully utiltize the capability of its systems requires a lot of study and practice. It represents a significant amount of effort, however the payoff, particularly in the latest Garmin Perspective fit, is situational awareness and navigational accuracy that makes a mid 1990's Airbus cockpit look stone age.

And here in lies the problem. Too many GA pilots buy aeroplanes, or mis match their skill set (over ego), that they can not cope with.

Some, obviously, are prepared to stick in the effort, but I feel, perhaps a majority, think this is a 'piece of cake', I am told it is easy, therefore will work it as I go - disaster looms eventually:\

So from what I have picked up from this thread (and general googling) it seems that the vast majority of accidents could probably have been avoided with superior training (or applying training correctly perhaps).

Whilst not relevant to me at the moment, in the future I quite like the idea of a parachute post PPL (well I like the idea now, but the general consensus seems to be that trying to learn in a complex aircraft is arguably more dangerous and could lead to unecessary errors), is it perhaps advisable to do more than the mandatory minimum for a type conversion and try and sit with someone who can explain the system intricacies and provide a more in depth training experience?

Exactly......Flying is like building block where experience, ratings, additional skill building, builds up to a bigger picture. Attempting to jump straight into complex types, from PPL, without the pre requisite training, is in my opinion, a potential issue. Add super dooper technology into the mix, again without adequate understanding and training, can only lead to problems further down the line.

We sometimes just have to accept that some things in life cannot be got tomorrow.....

Training is the key with a properly qualified instructor who knows how to teach the systems followed by sensible decision making.

I know quite a few owners who trained from scratch in Cirrus and there are a lot of advantages to this but it will likely take more hours than a C152 or similar.

To be fair, learning quickly isn't a concern for me, I have no desire to be a professional pilot, my goal is simply to fly as a hobby, but as safely as possible!!!

Its interesting you mention people learning from scratch in a Cirrus, I guess getting as many hours on type as possible makes sense! That said do any schools teach in a Cirrus? I was looking around the London schools and I haven't seen any that run a PPL course from scratch in a Cirrus :-(

Further to the information provided by Big Pistons Forever, the parachute recovery system is part of the type certificate and hence is required for an airworthy aircraft.

How it got to be there is an interesting story. Cirrus and the FAA collaborated on better ways to deal with spins. Data was compiled that revealed that most spins were not recoverable in aircraft that had been certified for recovery from spins. Go figure. So, Cirrus proposed that the parachute system be certified as an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) to satisfy the FAR Part 23 requirements for spin certification. The FAA agreed on condition that Cirrus demonstrate that the parachute would recover an aircraft after entry into a 1-1/2 turn spin. During testing, the test pilot found it difficult to get the plane to spin. Go figure. But we have all seen the iconic video of the Cirrus certification test that demonstrated recovery from a 1-1/2 turn spin with a lost of 920' of altitude. FAA granted Cirrus an ELOS certification and the SR20 type certificate was issued. There are now over 5,000 SR2X aircraft produced.

The story doesn't end. When Cirrus applied to the Europeans to certify the SR2X, they would not accept the FAA ELOS without additional spin testing. A limited (not a full) matrix of spin tests were conducted and the report concluded that the Cirrus aircraft was difficult to get into a spin but recovered with conventional techniques albeit requiring more dramatic control inputs. The Europeans used that limited spin testing plus the FAA ELOS to grant certification for the Cirrus SR2X in Europe. And it has been certified in every other country that Cirrus has applied.

Note: the Cirrus SR2X can be and has been demonstrated to recover from spins during certification. Not all spins, but enough to satisfy the regulators.

So, the parachute is necessary. The Cirrus SR2X can be recovered from some spins.

And the parachute is a nice to have. Especially for me who doubts that I could recover any airplane from a spin, since that was not required to get a real pilots certificate from the FAA.

Cheers
Rick
(Safety liaison for the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association,
and a Cirrus SR22 owner with 3100 hours time-in-type)

Yes, several flight training programs in universities with aviation schools have acquired fleets of Cirrus SR20 aircraft:

• Western Michigan University
• Purdue University
• Ohio State University
• Lake Superior College
• US Air Force Academy (T-53A variant)

And if you are asking about flight training schools, then there are several Cirrus Training Centers around the world and some of them use an integrated syllabus, Access to Flight, to prepare student pilots for both a private certificate and an instrument rating at the same time.

The Flight Academy reports that they have trained over 100 student pilots to private pilot certificate in a Cirrus. Zero time to a PPL. Pretty cool.

Cheers
Rick
(Safety liaison for the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association,
and a Cirrus SR22 owner with 3100 hours time-in-type)

Ab initio training in a "complex" type is not that unusual. It is just very unusual (unheard of, AFAIK) in the UK. A number of flying schools in the Far East have been training in TB20s.

Yep, I've not seen any around London yet (London, England to avoid confusion) :-(

Or even any nearby...

Cirrus ab-initio training
 

How about JPM Aviation - Home at North Weald?

Wow, looks great! Cool thanks, will check them out!