Cirrus

TFaudree_ERAU said:
Wait wut?

You're conceding to the fact that they recovered from a spin for certification testing, but the chute was required for certification?

I'm cornfused
Click to expand...

I've definitely heard that before but I can't remember right now why they needed a chute for certification. Anyone?
 
AviatorGator said:
I've definitely heard that before but I can't remember right now why they needed a chute for certification. Anyone?
Click to expand...

Because it was cheaper then going through all the testing. The fed's gave them the ok to certify the airplane just based on the fact that it had a chute instead of having to do all the spin testing for a normal category aircraft.
 
msmspilot said:
They were part way through the spin testing when they convinced the FAA that the chute was an "equivalent level of safety" for spin recovery. As someone else mentioned, the JAA did spin it, and it recovered just fine.
Click to expand...
dusfoff17 said:
Unlike EVERY other production aircraft, the parachute is a requirement for certification. The stability of the aircraft in slow flight, stall, and spin recovery were so far out of the envelope that it could not be certified without the chute.

Not arguing that it's not a good plane but you have to compare apples to apples.
Click to expand...

I've been digging around online for more on exactly what JAA/EASA did and have come up short. What I did find said they did incipient spin entries and recoveries trailing a special drogue chute (e.g. playing around in the entry phase without ever letting it develop). The source is other forums and cannot be considered reliable, but I would like to find the original report.

I disagree with the contention that it "could recover from spins just fine, it was just to save money." Cirrus has some pretty strong language in the Emergency Procedures section of the airplane information manual for the SR-20:

Spins

The SR20 is not approved for spins, and has not been tested or
certified for spin recovery characteristics. The only approved and
demonstrated method of spin recovery is activation of the Cirrus
Airframe Parachute System (See CAPS Deployment, this section).
Because of this, if the aircraft “departs controlled flight”, the CAPS
must be deployed.

While the stall characteristics of the SR20 make accidental entry into a
spin extremely unlikely, it is possible. Spin entry can be avoided by
using good airmanship: coordinated use of controls in turns, proper
airspeed control following the recommendations of this Handbook, and
never abusing the flight controls with accelerated inputs when close to
the stall (see Stalls, Section 4).

If, at the stall, the controls are misapplied and abused accelerated
inputs are made to the elevator, rudder and/or ailerons, an abrupt wing
drop may be felt and a spiral or spin may be entered. In some cases it
may be difficult to determine if the aircraft has entered a spiral or the
beginning of a spin.

• WARNING •

In all cases, if the aircraft enters an unusual attitude from
which recovery is not expected before ground impact,
immediate deployment of the CAPS is required.
The minimum demonstrated altitude loss for a CAPS
deployment from a one-turn spin is 920 feet. Activation at
higher altitudes provides enhanced safety margins for
parachute recoveries. Do not waste time and altitude trying to
recover from a spiral/spin before activating CAPS.

Inadvertent Spin Entry
1. CAPS ................................................................................. Activate
Click to expand...
Cirrus has a website on the CAPS & Stall/Spin issue to explain it further. Near the bottom, it asks "Was all this necessary?":

Opinion: No, the Cirrus would have been certified anyway:


The European authorities (initially JAA, later EASA) when first evaluating the Cirrus SR20 agreed with the principles of the FAA/ELOS approach but had some further questions. A series of spins was performed on their initiative. While not a complete formal program they reported no unusual characteristics.
Click to expand...
Ok I guess that's reasonable enough. Perhaps my expectations are unrealistic, there are after all many GA aircraft that are not recoverable from developed spins (or at least are not on paper). However I'm not aware of any involved in primary training other than the SR-20/22 (unless you count somebody doing their initial PPL in a multi or something).

With spins not part of the PPL curriculum, my former CFI used to treat them like the boogey-man during my private training in a C152, which can give you some pretty dramatic wing drops during stall recoveries that are a non-event with correct technique. However as a new student this created an incredible "on the verge of spinning and dying" impression every time I did a stall recovery, since I had never actually seen a spin entry to know what to expect. I was a pleasantly surprised when I finally did them with a CFI and realized just how hard you have to work to get an incipient spin, and I was not actually teetering on the edge of death all those times (:sarcasm:).

Ultimately my point is that recoverability from spins gives a training aircraft and CFI an extra safety margin, so if you let your student drop a wing before intervening, no harm no foul. Taking the SR-20 AFM at face value, all the sudden you have to start worrying about how much of a wing drop is too much? Is the airplane "out of control." If it is, your only officially approved course of action is to pull the chute, and it discourages you from wasting any time trying to recover!

Cirrus: Yes it was necessary: Regardless of anything in the spin area, future designs (from Cirrus and others) need to disregard spins:
The fact remains that a generation of pilots has not received spin training – and from the record of prior generations it wouldn’t matter if they had. Cirrus continues to go forward with aircraft designs that meet these higher “passive safety” standards regardless of the implication for spin recovery; and is committed to CAPS as a means to recover from all “loss of control” situations – including spins.
Click to expand...
This is my biggest gripe. In the preceding quote Cirrus is essentially saying that they believe spin recovery characteristics should be totally disregarded when designing airplanes - because anybody stupid enough to get into an inadvertent spin to begin with would lack the skill to get out of one. I believe the world is more complicated than that, and this is is a fundamentally flawed design philosophy to apply to a training airplane. (And I am seeing a heck of a lot of flight schools lately with fleets of SR-20s exclusively.)

Ultimately I don't have anything personally against Cirrus. In fact, I really enjoyed the little bit of right seat time I have in an SR-22 and think they make excellent personal airplanes (when flown by competent owners). However the thought of eventually instructing in one - when there exists the possibility that a student could try and kill me (which is normal) in such a way where my only option would be to rely on a ballistic parachute system that may or may not successfully crash-land the airplane - gives me the creeps.

:sitaware:
 
All it is, is liability. They didn't go through the certification so they can't say well since the JAA spun 'em go ahead and try to recover using the PARE technique and then pull the shoot. No we're just going to CYA and tell anyone who gets into a spin to pull the chute. Now If I got into a spin in one I would attempt to recover using the PARE techinque, then the chute if that fails but if I kill myself by over Vpe'ing the airplane Cirrus doesn't get a lawsuit from my parents.

You literally can't have a more controllable airplane in the stall. You have full aileron effectiveness and the only way to spin them is w/ flaps 50% in the power on stall.
 
jhugz said:
You literally can't have a more controllable airplane in the stall. You have full aileron effectiveness and the only way to spin them is w/ flaps 50% in the power on stall.
Click to expand...

Nice. That's really good to hear. There's just something about them saying that spins should be irrelevant that screams... fallacious argument.
 
One of my few complaints about this plane is how nice & sweet the stall warning is. It is far more jarring of an alert sound when you disengage the autopilot. IMO, Cirrus should switch the sounds and have the pleasant tone for the a/p and jarring beep when you approach a stall.

-A.S>
 
African_Swallow said:
One of my few complaints about this plane is how nice & sweet the stall warning is. It is far more jarring of an alert sound when you disengage the autopilot. IMO, Cirrus should switch the sounds and have the pleasant tone for the a/p and jarring beep when you approach a stall.

-A.S>
Click to expand...

:dunno: I actually think it's just the opposite. You can mute the autopilot disconnect tone by "double-clicking" the red button, too. At least in the -22.
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
Wait wut?

You're conceding to the fact that they recovered from a spin for certification testing, but the chute was required for certification?

I'm cornfused
Click to expand...

The aircraft was able to recover from a spin both under FAA and JAA testing. Under controlled conditions with a skilled, well-qualified pilot that intentionally conducted the manuver (therefore he knew it was coming). Continued testing revealed that "the average pilot" would not be able to perform at the same level of proficiency under similar conditions. More testing showed that the test pilot, when subjected to a spin that he wasn't prepared for, had difficulty in the recovery procedures.

So, the FAA and Cirrus came together for certification that included the chute. You don't have to like it, you can call it a "myth" and you can even close your eyes pretend that sun won't come up tomorrow. But when it's right there in your face, you'll feel the heat.

Chute was (and is) required for certification.
 
dustoff17 said:
The aircraft was able to recover from a spin both under FAA and JAA testing. Under controlled conditions with a skilled, well-qualified pilot that intentionally conducted the manuver (therefore he knew it was coming). Continued testing revealed that "the average pilot" would not be able to perform at the same level of proficiency under similar conditions. More testing showed that the test pilot, when subjected to a spin that he wasn't prepared for, had difficulty in the recovery procedures.

So, the FAA and Cirrus came together for certification that included the chute. You don't have to like it, you can call it a "myth" and you can even close your eyes pretend that sun won't come up tomorrow. But when it's right there in your face, you'll feel the heat.

Chute was (and is) required for certification.
Click to expand...
Woahmygoodness.
 
dustoff17 said:
The aircraft was able to recover from a spin both under FAA and JAA testing. Under controlled conditions with a skilled, well-qualified pilot that intentionally conducted the manuver (therefore he knew it was coming). Continued testing revealed that "the average pilot" would not be able to perform at the same level of proficiency under similar conditions. More testing showed that the test pilot, when subjected to a spin that he wasn't prepared for, had difficulty in the recovery procedures.

So, the FAA and Cirrus came together for certification that included the chute. You don't have to like it, you can call it a "myth" and you can even close your eyes pretend that sun won't come up tomorrow. But when it's right there in your face, you'll feel the heat.

Chute was (and is) required for certification.
Click to expand...

What in the hell...your incoherent rants make absolutely no sense at all.

It was a cost saving tatic nothing more, nothing less. It recovers no differently from a spin as a DA-40, Corvalis, or PA-44 ( O Noz, no spin testing conducted).
 
jhugz said:
What in the hell...your incoherent rants make absolutely no sense at all.

It was a cost saving tatic nothing more, nothing less. It recovers no differently from a spin as a DA-40, Corvalis, or PA-44 ( O Noz, no spin testing conducted).
Click to expand...

COST SAVINGS? Really? So it cost less to install the chute than to leave it off?

<edited>

You could try to buy a Cirrus without a chute. Tell the salesman you don't want the extra weight, fuel burn, initial investment, etc. and see what answer you get. They won't sell one without the chute because they can't....
 
inigo88 said:
Ok I guess that's reasonable enough. Perhaps my expectations are unrealistic, there are after all many GA aircraft that are not recoverable from developed spins (or at least are not on paper). However I'm not aware of any involved in primary training other than the SR-20/22 (unless you count somebody doing their initial PPL in a multi or something).
Click to expand...

Primary training, not certified to be recoverable from spins? Ever flown a PA28?

Also, the TB-9 Tampico. I've trained student pilots in both. You're not supposed to spin either, because they're not recoverable after the incipient spin. SR-20/22s met an "equivalent level of safety" with the parachute, but all they ever had to show was that after one turn, it was recoverable. That's all Piper showed with the PA28s.

Also, there are some places doing primary in BE-36s. I'm pretty sure those things were certified for spins. :rolleyes:
 
dustoff17 said:
You could try to buy a Cirrus without a chute. Tell the salesman you don't want the extra weight, fuel burn, initial investment, etc. and see what answer you get. They won't sell one without the chute because they can't....
Click to expand...

Obviously...

You really don't get it do you. The chute was added as an extra safety feature to the airplane. It's like buying a car w/ side air bags. Are they needed? No...does it make the vehicle safer? Absolutely. It's a selling point for the aircraft and most owners agree it's a positive.

They decided that since they already have this piece of equipment they would try and save some money on the certification process. The only way the Feds would approve this is that the only mention of spin recover could be that the chute has to be pulled. This is where the less educated people on the topic jumped to conclusions and decided that you couldn't recover from a spin w/ the airplane which is completely false.

Just for kicks and giggles how much time in type do you have?
 
msmspilot said:
Primary training, not certified to be recoverable from spins? Ever flown a PA28?

that's all Piper showed with the PA28s.
Click to expand...

That sir, is in-fact incorrect. Some of the early PA28's (PA28-140) were certified for spins. While there aren't many out there still, you can find them from time to time.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
That sir, is in-fact incorrect. Some of the early PA28's (PA28-140) were certified for spins. While there aren't many out there still, you can find them from time to time.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure an AD (?) now prevents even the early 140's from being spun now.
 
jhugz said:
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure an AD (?) now prevents even the early 140's from being spun now.
Click to expand...

May be, may not be. I was just proving the point that the PA28 at one time was approved for spins. Wouldn't surprise me one bit, after seeing the Cessna 150 spin AD.
 
Why the Cirrus hate from people? It's an airplane. If you prefer it, fly it. If you don't, then don't fly it.


Arguments like these are nothing more than :banghead:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top