Icarus Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 I was speaking to the Cirrus sales rep at Lismore a couple weeks ago. He was adamant that the cirrus can be recovered from a spin . You just had to be shown how. It wont recover in one turn therefore wont meet FAR spin recovery certification. Here is a story from a CFI who recovered from a spin, I have no reason to doubt its validity. http://studentpilot.com/interact/forum/showthread.php?39859-Unintentional-spin-in-a-Cirrus It seems that the design of the wings that make them harder to stall/spin , also make them slower to recover from a spin. here is an interview with one of the design engineers. http://www.kineticlearning.com/pilots_world/safety/06_05/article_06_03.html and the Cirrus logic http://whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx It appears at first to me, that they were not prepared to change the wing design to get it to recover in one turn, the same design that helps prevent spins in the first place. So the catch was : recover in one turn and easier to enter a spin, or harder to enter spin and slower or possibly no recovery and use a chute. and one more : http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2003/February/1/Spinning-In 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 I was speaking to the Cirrus sales rep at Lismore a couple weeks ago.He was adamant that the cirrus can be recovered from a spin . You just had to be shown how. It wont recover in one turn therefore wont meet FAR spin recovery certification. Here is a story from a CFI who recovered from a spin, I have no reason to doubt its validity. http://studentpilot.com/interact/forum/showthread.php?39859-Unintentional-spin-in-a-Cirrus It seems that the design of the wings that make them harder to stall/spin , also make them slower to recover from a spin. here is an interview with one of the design engineers. http://www.kineticlearning.com/pilots_world/safety/06_05/article_06_03.html and the Cirrus logic http://whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx It appears at first to me, that they were not prepared to change the wing design to get it to recover in one turn, the same design that helps prevent spins in the first place. So the catch was : recover in one turn and easier to enter a spin, or harder to enter spin and slower or possibly no recovery and use a chute. Yes, thanks for that link. This is one of their statements: "In short, modern general aviation airplanes are not certified for spins, nor are pilots equipped to recover them." Make of it what you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Great links - A nice read ...and here lies the very logical explanation CIRRUS Engineer: When the engineering team at CIRRUS looked at the hard accident data, what we found was that the vast majority of spins takes place one-thousand feet above ground level and below. What this means, is that at such a low altitude to begin with, few pilots can recover from a stall or stall/spin before an impact with the ground. With most of the accidents initiating at or below 1,000 feet – and with recovery taking on average 1,200 feet – it became obvious that making a plane easy to recover from a spin, and then training the pilot group in spin recovery, is not enough to solve the vast majority of the stall/spin accidents because there simply is not enough altitude to recover. Most of these events are occurring during the take-off and landing phase of the flight, so it seemed much more logical to concentrate our efforts at CIRRUS at preventing spins in the first place. Also worth a read, especially the bottom half... http://whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieselten Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Just another comment, if I may:- The design of the Cirrus undercarriage is aimed at absorbing the impact of a BRS-landing and minimising airframe damage. Obviously much depends on the surface on which the aircraft actually alights at the end of the descent, but in many cases the airframe is capable of being repaired and put back into service. Comparatively few are written off due to damage from the parachute-landing itself. Damage to the airframe prior to the use of the parachute may result in the aeronautical equivalent of an insurance "constructive total loss", but that is an entirely different matter. Oscar's comment that "...descent under the BRS will result in, more-than-usually, totalling the airframe." is an over-simplification. Some airframes are indeed written-off, but many are repairable - at which point insurance comes into play. Basically, if the airframe lands on the undercarriage, intact, on a reasonably flat surface, in most cases the damage is not great and is repairable. Since the aircfraft is now the property of the insurance company (assuming it was insured and an asset of such high value should have been) then they have the last word. More than one Cirrus that landed under a parachute has been repaired and flown again by the owner who had recourse to use the BRS in the first place. I am not aware of any Cirrus Owners who have had to use the BRS a second time. It would seem the lesson is learned and a wiser and more prudent pilot is the result. Disclaimer: I am not a Cirrus-owner, nor am I a Cirrus-pilot. However, if I had the wherewithal, and needed a high-performance, piston-powered 4-seat cruising aircraft, the Cirrus SR22T would be No. 1 on my list of aeroplanes to test-fly. It wouldn't be a very long list, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 The Cirrus is a good looking aeroplane in my opinion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Just watching NBN nine news and a short clip came up of what looked like a Cirrus coming down under canopy in the US. Landed on a busy road and got hit by a truck. Anyone else see it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Here it is. https://www.inverse.com/article/7703-whole-plane-parachute-caught-on-video-during-safe-landing-in-arkansas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PA. Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Have to wonder why he didn't just land the plane on the road. Oh the engine has stopped, time to pull the insurance company just bought my plane lever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 It doesnt matter the occupant/s survived and thier firends and family are sleeping well tonight.....anything else is jibber jabber 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Have to wonder why he didn't just land the plane on the road.Oh the engine has stopped, time to pull the insurance company just bought my plane lever. Did you notice the power lines across the road, the bridge, the other cars? If it's a choice between landing on that road at 60/70 knots, or pull the chute, I would pull the chute every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Interesting that the article says the CAPS has been deployed 53 times. Are Cirrus buyers less able than other pilots, or are Cirrus aircraft so common that 53 deployments is statistically in line with crash statistics from other aircraft? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Interesting that the article says the CAPS has been deployed 53 times. Are Cirrus buyers less able than other pilots, or are Cirrus aircraft so common that 53 deployments is statistically in line with crash statistics from other aircraft? There is over 6000 flying now, so given they are STRONGLY encouraged to pull the chute in the event of an engine out or loss of control etc... 53 in total from a fleet of 6000 with over 6.5 million flying hours doesn't seem statistically large. I think if you had chutes in many other makes and they were trained to pull the chute in similar events on those aircraft the rates might be similar or higher. I think it is because they are so common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 There is over 6000 flying now, so given they are STRONGLY encouraged to pull the chute in the event of an engine out or loss of control etc... 53 in total from a fleet of 6000 with over 6.5 million flying hours doesn't seem statistically large. I think if you had chutes in many other makes and they were trained to pull the chute in similar events on those aircraft the rates might be similar or higher.I think it is because they are so common. Hmmm over 6.5m hours on 6,000 airframes = average of 1,000+ each - seems high as many of these will have been privately owned 53 CAPS deployed on 6000 airframes = 1 in 110 of all airframes have already needed CAPS deployment - seems high to me Apart from statistics (which as we all know can be made to say whatever you want if you really try even from commonly accepted data sources) the rates of deployment in high performance cirrus seems way out of proportion to the deployment rate for other parachute recovery systems in lower performance aircraft. Now that may seem completely intuitive to many given the probably likely ability to put a low performance aircraft down with a power out and they generally do not fly IRF or night ... but I am not getting a warm fuzzy feeling that the basic manufacturer advice is pull red handle and the A$800k airframe will deal with the rest. Seems too high a rate and to my mind indicating an instilled marketing driven 'safety' culture of pull red handle or an airframe that requires high level of skill that is being sold to under-prepared pilots on the basis of a pull the red handle. Either way I can get more bang for $800k out of lower (much lower) performance aircraft and am happy to rely on the professionals to get me from A to B with cabin service when I NEED to travel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Hmmmover 6.5m hours on 6,000 airframes = average of 1,000+ each - seems high as many of these will have been privately owned Have a look through the classifieds on a site like controller.com. There are a lot of these for sale with 2000 - 3000 hours on them. Their owners fly them a lot. Flying around the US everywhere you land there seems to be a cirrus taxiing infront/behind you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Ex Wally Mart Exec reports it was a low oil pressure problem, not a engine failure just low oil pressure. Wonder if the truck driver will sue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Landing on the road was not a guaranteed outcome and the plane was moving like a pendulum. Still a fair amount of uncertainty involved. Once you pull the chute it's in the lap of the gods. People selling something are going to put the best spin on it's capability, and are unlikely to cover the downside. Could it eventually result in less pilot training? Airliners will spin . Are we going to have chutes for them or train pilots to handle upsets? Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 The 224 people in that Russian A-321 might have been glad to have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Chutes don't collect all the pieces and bring them down together. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 The 224 people in that Russian A-321 might have been glad to have one. Landing on the road was not a guaranteed outcome and the plane was moving like a pendulum. Still a fair amount of uncertainty involved. Once you pull the chute it's in the lap of the gods. People selling something are going to put the best spin on it's capability, and are unlikely to cover the downside. Could it eventually result in less pilot training?Airliners will spin . Are we going to have chutes for them or train pilots to handle upsets? Nev It's hard to imagine a chute ever strong enough to carry the total mass of the hundreds of tons found in a Boeing 747 or an Airbus A380. I think the old (read: tried and true) system of excellent pilot training to get aircraft out of trouble is still the best system. I am sure that this will stay for the foreseeable future in large scale commercial flights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 The Horse has already bolted. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 A long ago Saturday night session around the drop zone fire debating this scenario came to the conclusion that if you were on an airliner that came apart at height and you didn't freeze or pass out from lack of oxygen then the 5 minute plus freefall should be long enough to find the baggage bin that has your rig in it and put it on. Maybe the hardware free base jumping rigs that are low profile and designed to get around metal detector security might be better insurance these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 A long ago Saturday night session around the drop zone fire debating this scenario came to the conclusion that if you were on an airliner that came apart at height and you didn't freeze or pass out from lack of oxygen then the 5 minute plus freefall should be long enough to find the baggage bin that has your rig in it and put it on.Maybe the hardware free base jumping rigs that are low profile and designed to get around metal detector security might be better insurance these days. Would love to be a fly on the wall as you try to explain to people in dark clothes with little sence of humour and a goodly supply of rubber gloves why you are wearing a deliberately low-xray visibility parachute rig onto a commercial airliner ... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 One rubber glove is an indignity too many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 The OAT at fl 370 is often about minus 60 C but you would fall fast in the thin air so whether hypoxia would get you might depend on your condition, to a fair extent. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Interesting article here discussing larger aircraft with chutes. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131223-should-planes-have-parachute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now