Cirrus Watch

[tomokc]

This June 2016 SR-20 crash at KHOU comes to mind: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2016/06/cirrus-sr20-n4252g-safe-aviation-llc.html

Here's 3-D animation including ATC audio. I wonder if Cirrus' safety features gave the pilot a false sense of security in light of her limited pilot skills:

 

[SeanD]

I'd say it's not as issue of risk, but being aware of their limitations. Also, possessing the humbleness to admit "I can't do it."

That's pretty much what I meant. It's possible though some may take more risks than a pilot who owns a Warrior.

 

[USMCmech]

The difference is that CD pushed the tech in the plane opposed to the gray matter between the pilot's ears. No, that's not second-hand info either.

The weak link in any airplane is the loose nut in the left seat.

Many more pilots have murdered innocent airplanes than the other way round.

 

[Bear]

Cirrus didn't do conventional spin testing for the FAA

see Full INTERVIEW with a CIRRUS DESIGN ENGINEER @ http://www.kineticlearning.com/pilots_world/safety/06_05/article_06_03.html

​

To explain the evolution of and theory behind the CIRRUS wing, we’ve conducted an interesting and candid Q&A with one of the company’s topdesign engineers. What follows is a discussion on the revolutionary design of the CIRRUS aircraft wing, the CIRRUS commitment to safety by reducing stall/spin accidents, and the overall engineering philosophy at CIRRUS

Question: Has any spin testing been conducted in the CIRRUS airplanes?

CIRRUS Engineer: Yes, CIRRUS has done spin testing in both the SR20 and the SR22, and we’ve done a variety of spins in both models. But, that’s different than saying we’ve completed the entire spin matrix in each plane in every conceivable condition and configuration – because we haven’t. Eventually we decided to take the logical stand that spin prevention is the key to preventing needless fatalities, and attempts to make the airplane spin-certified would just muddy the waters.
Spin recovery requirements are very stringent. The upside of the cuffs – that they give greater control in the slow flight regime – also have, like every aircraft feature, a compromise, and that is that they can cause an aircraft to take more than the required one-turn recovery rotation to be eligible to be spin-certified. But people should understand that even though an airplane may be spin certified, certain ‘cliffs,’ as we call them, can still exist in spin aerodynamics making recovery uncertain.

Question: What role does the parachute or CAPS (CIRRUS Airplane Parachute System) play in all of this?

CIRRUS Engineer: Since at CIRRUS we made the judgment call to not certify the airplane in the spin category, we still recognized that even with the added safety of the drooped wings, the possibility still existed that a pilot could find himself in a situation where he has gotten the airplane into a spin. In that case, the CAPS can be deployed for a quick recovery, slightly less than 1,000 feet if immediately activated.

The parachute has a connection to spins in that if you get into one, it is the means of recovery you should use. In tests we conducted, in a one-turn spin the chute will recover you faster than will the standard pilot control input. But, the parachute’s purpose is not limited to spin recovery, it’s there to give the pilot an option in a number of emergency scenarios such as total engine failure, mid-air, control failure, etc.

We want pilots to keep in mind that they should be ‘primed to pull.’ In the early phases of the military ejection seats it was found that pilots would stay with a broken or spinning aircraft all the way until impact, rather than pull the ejection handles. Why? Because the decision to eject was not yet firmly planted in their minds. Initially the seats were not a success because there was not the collective recognition by the pilot group to eject, and the military had to conduct a lot of additional training to overcome the mindset to ‘save the plane.’

The F-14 Tomcat worked well in this respect because it’s usually the back-seater, the RIO, who pulls the ejection handles first. Because he’s not fixated on the flight controls, he can more easily sum up a bad situation and say, “hey – I’m outta here!”

So we hope that CIRRUS pilots will instinctively have it in their mind that what they’re going to do if they should ever find themselves in a spin scenario is to pull the chute. Again, if the situation warrants, be primed to pull.

This concludes the CIRRUS Stall/Spin Awareness article series. Thank you for reading and look for a new safety series to be presented on this site in the near future.

 

[deadstick]

That's pretty much what I meant. It's possible though some may take more risks than a pilot who owns a Warrior.

The weak link in any airplane is the loose nut in the left seat.

Many more pilots have murdered innocent airplanes than the other way round.

I'm waiting for the final report on the CJ4 that went in the drink (at a very high rate of descent) after departing BKL.

 

[cezzna]

Noob pilots cannot conceive the peace twin turbines deliver. I wouldn't do it in any single recip, twin recip, maybe a single turboprop.

Once you go twin turbine, your conception of 'safe and reasonable' just changes. Forever.

 

[denverpilot]

Noob pilots cannot conceive the peace twin turbines deliver. I wouldn't do it in any single recip, twin recip, maybe a single turboprop.

Once you go twin turbine, your conception of 'safe and reasonable' just changes. Forever.

Noob pilot can't afford the peace twin turbines deliver. Heck most pilots can't.

 

[fholbert]

Noob pilots cannot conceive the peace twin turbines deliver. I wouldn't do it in any single recip, twin recip, maybe a single turboprop.

Once you go twin turbine, your conception of 'safe and reasonable' just changes. Forever.

Noob pilots own their airplane.

 

[SeanD]

"Our twins are all booked up but we have a few great singles left"

 

[dustoff17]

Eh, we had a couple of guys deadstick 210s at night when I was at flx. One of them on to alligator Alley! Don't think they would have made it over the Rockies.

Eh, we had a couple of guys deadstick 210s at night when I was at flx. One of them on to alligator Alley! Don't think they would have made it over the Rockies.

They did this twice in the SAME 210?
They apparently have run out of luck; wouldn't want to fly with either of them.....

 

[Deleted member 27505]

I think the point Nark is getting set is unless you are willing to expend the personal cash and fly with some kind of NVGs what are you really gaining in a rural area with rocky terrain vs fields with irrigation ditches and god knows what grade, you can't really tell. I don't care how night adapted you are even with ambient light your best case is a guess. You are blind. Out of the people on this forum a large portion have never operated with systems like FLIR or NVG so it's honestly very easy to see the opinion of not understanding just how little night adapted vision can see. 100% illum night unaided still isn't good enough to land to an unlit field you aren't familiar with, much less a random chunk of real estate you picked while making a disturbingly quiet decent in the dark. Heck even NVGs and FLIR on some nights are garbage as far as what detail they can break out in the dark.

As to road recovery, one of my best friends executed an emergency landing to a road early morning in a populated area. Got the aircraft down fine and his fiancée managed to get out. Before he could the aircraft inadvertently burst in to flames and he has burns over 80% of his body now so yeah where he landed was far easier access for rescue and recovery, but it won't change a thing for him. Honestly unless you land on a state highway/interstate/etc near a major metro area your chances at immediate aid in an emergency are pretty slim. That's not exclusive to aviation either. A car accident at 11pm in whole swaths of the country where you are immediately visible on the road are going to go largely unnoticed by any passers by. My dad ran rescue out in rural farm country. People would die if they weren't able to seek rescue, meaning having the means after an accident to move towards somewhere with lights and people and attract attention to their situation. Very rarely did somebody if they weren't involved but unharmed from an accident be able to get aid moving their way, Planes same as cars crashing in the dark fall under that category of if a tree falls in the woods unfortunately.

Either way as dangerous as a night flight over mountain terrain in a single engine sounds stupid, I doubt it's any less dangerous and I'd put money on safer from say driving through the cascades or front range in a FWD explorer in the dark.

OK, I'll quit.

I started flying in the Navy, so maybe I'm carrying around a default bias for more than one engine. I also have a few thousand hours in mountains (at and below ridgetops), so maybe I have a default respect for them; The kind of respect folks in Gangster movies have for a capriciously violent Mob Boss.

This is all about risk management. Me? I don't particularly like flying at night in a single, period. Perhaps you're just ballsier than I. Maybe you're better at math. Good for you. Go forth and singulate.

 

[Deleted member 27505]

When your butt eats your underwear.

I recently cut an oil filter that had been in use just 10.3 hours and found a bunch of metal in it.

A quick play back of where my SE aircraft had been the last 10.3 hours occurred. No night over mountains.

After looking at that filter, writing a $37k check to Continental was easier than one would expect.

View attachment 40302

So are you saying "No Continentals over the Divide"? Or that Ben & Jerry are developing a new chunky flavor based on that filter?

 

[killbilly]

OK, I'll quit.

I started flying in the Navy, so maybe I'm carrying around a default bias for more than one engine. I also have a few thousand hours in mountains (at and below ridgetops), so maybe I have a default respect for them; The kind of respect folks in Gangster movies have for a capriciously violent Mob Boss.

This is all about risk management. Me? I don't particularly like flying at night in a single, period. Perhaps you're just ballsier than I. Maybe you're better at math. Good for you. Go forth and singulate.

I like flying singles at night.

I don't think that makes me better at math.

Just dumber.

 

[deadstick]

Noob pilots cannot conceive the peace twin turbines deliver. I wouldn't do it in any single recip, twin recip, maybe a single turboprop.

Once you go twin turbine, your conception of 'safe and reasonable' just changes. Forever.

Just because an aircraft has 2 Jet-A-burning engines, everything isn't hunky-dory. It depends on the make and model of the aircraft, weight, and atmospheric conditions. This is one thing I really dislike about the normal category King Airs. Everything is fine as long as both engines keep working, but if one tanks that default to "GO" can get your butt in bind very quickly. No, balanced field isn't required. But what's your out? What's your plan IF it happens? Not knowing that it'll take 9500 ft to climb to 35'AGL might make you reconsider departing that 3500 ft runway at gross weight.

Be aware of and respect the limitations of your aircraft.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

This June 2016 SR-20 crash at KHOU comes to mind: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2016/06/cirrus-sr20-n4252g-safe-aviation-llc.html

Here's 3-D animation including ATC audio. I wonder if Cirrus' safety features gave the pilot a false sense of security in light of her limited pilot skills:

Although the pilot sounds new/inexperienced around ATC, this ATC is overcontrolling the hell out of her. IMO, the words "keep it tight" should not exist in the controller's vocabulary/vernacular when it comes to airplanes in traffic pattern. If only she had used "unable" at some point because that whole exercise was getting ridiculous.

In fact, there was another Cirrus in Melbourne, Florida when the controller said "cut it in tight, cut it in tight now," so the guy turned hard and pulled up, immediately entering a downward spiral/spin and crashed nose first into the ground:

 

[Lawman]

OK, I'll quit.

I started flying in the Navy, so maybe I'm carrying around a default bias for more than one engine. I also have a few thousand hours in mountains (at and below ridgetops), so maybe I have a default respect for them; The kind of respect folks in Gangster movies have for a capriciously violent Mob Boss.

This is all about risk management. Me? I don't particularly like flying at night in a single, period. Perhaps you're just ballsier than I. Maybe you're better at math. Good for you. Go forth and singulate.

Hey I'm with you to good bit of the point. I don't fly professionally in a single, and as the helo thread discussed I much prefer having the option to reroll the dice under certain circumstances. That being said, the general consensus about mountains.... how many singles go freely flying over large bodies of water? That'll kill you just as dead. You aren't supposed too obviously, but that doesn't mean people aren't stretching the meaning of glide distance or what the book intends for safety as a hedge against their bad math on risk management.

I think it's not so much people don't respect mountains as they don't really respect anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Richman]

Knock on wood, but the only engine failure I've ever had was in a twin turbine...soooo....

 

[CFI A&P]

I wonder if Cirrus' safety features gave the pilot a false sense of security in light of her limited pilot skills:

Understatement of the year. There was a period in which their marketing was full of this attitude. They were emphasizing the capabilities of the airplane rather than discussing the limitations. Weather - no problem with XM weather, wet wings and the TIO-550 with a service ceiling of FL250. Flying over terrain or otherwise areas without suitable landing sites - no problem with the CAPS parachute. Worried about inadvertent VFR into IMC - no problem with the wing leveler button.

 

[nibake]

Understatement of the year. There was a period in which their marketing was full of this attitude. They were emphasizing the capabilities of the airplane rather than discussing the limitations. Weather - no problem with XM weather, wet wings and the TIO-550 with a service ceiling of FL250. Flying over terrain or otherwise areas without suitable landing sites - no problem with the CAPS parachute. Worried about inadvertent VFR into IMC - no problem with the wing leveler button.

Somehow I feel like you just jumped from Cirrus to Mooney at the end there. SR20's don't have a wing leveler button, but Mooneys do. Maybe HDG and ALT buttons on the STEC 55? Anyway, point taken. Maybe you were secretly implying a connection between Mooney and Cirrus?

 

[CFI A&P]

Somehow I feel like you just jumped from Cirrus to Mooney at the end there. SR20's don't have a wing leveler button, but Mooneys do. Maybe HDG and ALT buttons on the STEC 55? Anyway, point taken. Maybe you were secretly implying a connection between Mooney and Cirrus?

SR-20s have a service ceiling of 17,500' and do not have a TIO-550. Parts of that post apply to the 20 and parts of it apply to the 22. I feel like you didn't read or process the entire post and immediately went on the defense for the SR-20. Cirrus has offered the wing leveler button as early as 2008. http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/cirrus-perspective/