Light AC down in Lawson NSW

[Guest ozzie]

An awful lot of fatalities in that accident list in just one model which is relatively new.

Something wrong there David.

I was pretty impressed with the rate of decent of that round canopy. Pretty slow. My experience with the old sport round reserves and some old military rounds were a lot faster. Anything under 22ft per second was OK from memory. Major would remember the ground pounding days as well.

 

 

[alf jessup]

An awful lot of fatalities in that accident list in just one model which is relatively new.

Yeah David very true,

 

But if you look at a lot of the investigations you will find plenty of the aircraft were in perfect shape right up until the pilot flew them in to terrain or crashed while scud running.

 

Few engine stoppages and chute deployments too, quite a few deaths from the pilot not activating the CAPS system as they probably didn't want to damage the plane from activation but just die instead.

 

Fairly high performance aircraft I would say with some very low performance pilots contributing to it's high fatality rate.

 

Alf

 

 

[eightyknots]

Interesting the way this was worded!

 

Until 2004, Cirrus's fatality rate had been twice the industry average, the company's director of flight operations, Travis Klumb, said in an industry podcast.

 

 

The Cirrus fatal accident rate had been about twice the industry average at 2.6/100,000 hours, reported AVWeb.

 

 

But by 2013, the Cirrus fatality rate had dropped to 1.01/100,000, below the industry average of 1.2.

 

 

A major reason for the fall in fatalities was improved training of pilots in how to deploy the Cirrus CAPS parachute system.

 

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/plane-parachute-gives-near-disaster-a-soft-landing-20140510-zr8uc.html#ixzz31UI79a6c

 

This did NOT say, better pilot training for landing with engine-outs!

 

 

[frank marriott]

"Fairly high performance aircraft I would say with some very low performance pilots contributing to it's high fatality rate."

 

Alf,

 

I suspect you may be close to some of the problem here.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Yeah but it's specifically marketed to GA so Cirrus really have a problem. You chase that market and you're going to get a wide variety of pilot performance. What I really don't get is the FAA changing the rules mid-stream with the spinning. I mean seriously......a GA aircraft and it needs advanced techniques to recover from a spin, so instead we'll just re-certify the "supplementary" safety device of an aircraft parachute, call it a "primary" safety device and teach guys to pop the chute to recover? Sounds like Cirrus paid for more than a few FAA lunches.

 

Normally such aircraft are not marketed as General Aviation family runabouts!

 

 

[M61A1]

Some cut and paste from a Cirrus owners website.......maybe clear up a few things/or not.

 

The myth of spins in a CirrusUnfortunately, because Cirrus Design and the FAA agreed to an Equivalent Level of Safety approach to certification, the SR20 and SR22 have never gone through a full battery of spin tests. That leads some critics to promote myths about spins in a Cirrus.

 

 

 

Myth: The SR20/SR22 can't recover from a spin

 

 

 

Wrong. It can.

 

 

 

What is more probable is that average pilots cannot recover from a spin, whether flying a Cirrus or any other plane. And it is almost certain that low-altitude spins cannot be recovered before ground impact. So, in a Cirrus, use CAPS.

 

 

 

Furthermore, the Europeans tested spins in the SR20 and found that it recovered, although it took more aggressive maneuvers to put into a spin and more aggressive maneuvers to recover. After about 60 spin tests, they abandoned that approach and approved the FAA ELOS certification.

 

 

 

Myth: The parachute is required because the SR20/SR22 failed the spin test.

 

 

 

Wrong. It was never tested for FAA certification. So, it never failed.

 

 

 

What was tested was the ability of the CAPS parachute to recover the SR2X from a 1-1/2 turn spin. It did. The FAA accepted the ELOS certification with the CAPS parachute in lieu of spin certification.

 

 

 

Myth: If the SR20/SR22 spins, you must pull CAPS.

 

 

 

Wrong. But good advice.

 

 

 

The POH states that the only approved and demonstrated method of recovery from a spin is to activate CAPS. Given the FAA acceptance of the ELOS certification, this is prudent. But it is not a capital-L limitation.

 

 

 

The real issue is whether you recover in time. If you waste time and altitude attempting to recover from a spin or a spiral dive, you may no longer have the awareness or the ability to pull the CAPS handle.

 

 

 

[eightyknots]

Some cut and paste from a Cirrus owners website.......maybe clear up a few things/or not.The myth of spins in a CirrusUnfortunately, because Cirrus Design and the FAA agreed to an Equivalent Level of Safety approach to certification, the SR20 and SR22 have never gone through a full battery of spin tests. That leads some critics to promote myths about spins in a Cirrus.

 

 

 

Myth: The SR20/SR22 can't recover from a spin

 

 

 

Wrong. It can.

 

 

 

What is more probable is that average pilots cannot recover from a spin, whether flying a Cirrus or any other plane. And it is almost certain that low-altitude spins cannot be recovered before ground impact. So, in a Cirrus, use CAPS.

 

 

 

Furthermore, the Europeans tested spins in the SR20 and found that it recovered, although it took more aggressive maneuvers to put into a spin and more aggressive maneuvers to recover. After about 60 spin tests, they abandoned that approach and approved the FAA ELOS certification.

 

 

 

Myth: The parachute is required because the SR20/SR22 failed the spin test.

 

 

 

Wrong. It was never tested for FAA certification. So, it never failed.

 

 

 

What was tested was the ability of the CAPS parachute to recover the SR2X from a 1-1/2 turn spin. It did. The FAA accepted the ELOS certification with the CAPS parachute in lieu of spin certification.

 

 

 

Myth: If the SR20/SR22 spins, you must pull CAPS.

 

 

 

Wrong. But good advice.

 

 

 

The POH states that the only approved and demonstrated method of recovery from a spin is to activate CAPS. Given the FAA acceptance of the ELOS certification, this is prudent. But it is not a capital-L limitation.

 

 

 

The real issue is whether you recover in time. If you waste time and altitude attempting to recover from a spin or a spiral dive, you may no longer have the awareness or the ability to pull the CAPS handle.

The wording is pretty contradictory. On the one hand they say that spin recovery is possible. Then they say it is "wrong" to pull the ballistic chute to recover from a Cirrus spin, and they simultaneously say that it is "good advice"!

 

 

 

These are the operative words, in black and white:

 

"The POH states that the only approved and demonstrated method of recovery from a spin is to activate CAPS"

 

 

[dutchroll]

That's a really poor line of argument he uses in his "myths" to defend the Cirrus.

 

Myth 1: He responds "What is more probable is that average pilots cannot recover from a spin, whether flying a Cirrus or any other plane."

 

Crap. The Cirrus, by the company's own admission and even the writer's own admission immediately below this sentence requires "aggressive recovery manoeuvres". The wing design features of the aircraft provide inherent resistance to conventional spin recovery. That is even stated in the FAA and JAA paperwork on it. This is not so with other aircraft designed for GA. Those GA aircraft which have been spin tested can often recover simply by centralising the controls (or even taking your hands and feet off). At worst, a conventional spin recovery using neutral stick and opposite rudder works fine.

 

Myth 2: He responds "It was never tested so it never failed."

 

 

Lol. "Yeah I know I had 6 pints before driving home, but I was never breath tested so that's OK." Jeepers they have a letter from the FAA stating that it needs to demonstrate an "equivalent level of safety" in respect of FAR 23.221 (spinning requirements) because it cannot comply with FAR 23.221 as it's written. This is in response to Cirrus wanting to say that it meets FAA/JAA spinning criteria.

 

Myth 3: He responds "The POH states that the only approved and demonstrated method of recovery from a spin is to activate CAPS. Given the FAA acceptance of the ELOS certification, this is prudent. But it is not a capital-L limitation."

 

Huh??? Letter from the FAA Aircraft Certification Office: An additional limitation must be added to § 23.1583 to require GARD deployment if the airplane departs controlled flight. That's a limitation and an emergency procedure stated in the Aircraft Flight Manual. It's not a "oh don't get too fussed about doing it if you don't really want to".

 

Don't get me wrong - I don't care about the fact that spin recovery in the Cirrus is difficult and requires unusual techniques. The Chipmunk is the same and I've spun that often (it also left a trail of wreckage as a result over many of its earlier years in service). But why would you market this design as a family wagon for the weekend pilot?

 

 

[M61A1]

The wording is pretty contradictory. On the one hand they say that spin recovery is possible. Then they say it is "wrong" to pull the ballistic chute to recover from a Cirrus spin, and they simultaneously say that it is "good advice"!  

 

These are the operative words, in black and white:

 

"The POH states that the only approved and demonstrated method of recovery from a spin is to activate CAPS"

I have no interest in aircraft such as the Cirrus, but you have misunderstood.

What he is suggesting, is that it is a Myth that you MUST pull the chute to recover from a spin, meaning that it is possible to recover, but that it's likely that you won't (unless you are a really brilliant pilot), so pulling the chute is good advice.

 

 

[Oscar]

So people buy an aircraft - a not cheap aircraft - that CAN enter a spin, and basically, if you do, then your only POH-recommended action results in an uncontrolled descent that will damage the aircraft.

 

Why do they pay that money?

 

 

[Teckair]

I have no interest in aircraft such as the Cirrus, but you have misunderstood.

Yes and he is not the only one.

 

Why do they pay that money?

Probably because they think it goes fast and if necessary can land all by itself on a dime. I would not ever get in one.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Some of these flash new planes may be fast and efficient, but they don't seem to be very forgiving when things go wrong. Older designs like Cessnas carried that inbuilt safety margin at the cost of lower speed and higher fuel-burn. A bit like home insurance.

 

 

[David Isaac]

So people buy an aircraft - a not cheap aircraft - that CAN enter a spin, and basically, if you do, then your only POH-recommended action results in an uncontrolled descent that will damage the aircraft.Why do they pay that money?

I don't think real pilots buy them do they ........

 

 

[M61A1]

That's a really poor line of argument he uses in his "myths" to defend the Cirrus.Myth 1: He responds "What is more probable is that average pilots cannot recover from a spin, whether flying a Cirrus or any other plane."

 

Crap. The Cirrus, by the company's own admission and even the writer's own admission immediately below this sentence requires "aggressive recovery manoeuvres". The wing design features of the aircraft provide inherent resistance to conventional spin recovery. That is even stated in the FAA and JAA paperwork on it. This is not so with other aircraft designed for GA. Those GA aircraft which have been spin tested can often recover simply by centralising the controls (or even taking your hands and feet off). At worst, a conventional spin recovery using neutral stick and opposite rudder works fine.

 

Myth 2: He responds "It was never tested so it never failed."

 

 

Lol. "Yeah I know I had 6 pints before driving home, but I was never breath tested so that's OK." Jeepers they have a letter from the FAA stating that it needs to demonstrate an "equivalent level of safety" in respect of FAR 23.221 (spinning requirements) because it cannot comply with FAR 23.221 as it's written. This is in response to Cirrus wanting to say that it meets FAA/JAA spinning criteria.

 

Myth 3: He responds "The POH states that the only approved and demonstrated method of recovery from a spin is to activate CAPS. Given the FAA acceptance of the ELOS certification, this is prudent. But it is not a capital-L limitation."

 

Huh??? Letter from the FAA Aircraft Certification Office: An additional limitation must be added to § 23.1583 to require GARD deployment if the airplane departs controlled flight. That's a limitation and an emergency procedure stated in the Aircraft Flight Manual. It's not a "oh don't get too fussed about doing it if you don't really want to".

 

Don't get me wrong - I don't care about the fact that spin recovery in the Cirrus is difficult and requires unusual techniques. The Chipmunk is the same and I've spun that often (it also left a trail of wreckage as a result over many of its earlier years in service). But why would you market this design as a family wagon for the weekend pilot?

Possibly I should have included the next line, which was something along the lines of "If you want an aircraft that you can spin, then you shouldn't buy a Cirrus".

 

 

[David Isaac]

or perhaps a slight variation "if you want an aircraft you cant spin, you shouldn't buy a Cirrus ..." . Cirrus are damned either way they sugar coat the argument. Either way their supplemental (which became compulsory) way of getting around spin certification is a means of justifying a poor design and obviously the result of a lot of lobbying.

 

If it was good enough for everyone else to have to comply and be able to recover from a conventional 1.5 turn spin without writing off the aircraft and passengers, why should Cirrus be exempt allowing a supplemental device that will ultimately right off the aircraft anyway.

 

A bigger question is why would any intelligent pilot buy one ... hmmmm ... was the key word 'intelligent' ?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

What's the use of having an aircraft that is easy to recover from a spin when the average pilot is not trained in spin recovery during their PPL training.

 

The Europeans showed that if it is 'hard in' then it really is 'hard out' so why burn valuable height with each turn that you probably don't have when you can fire off the CAPs.

 

Does the Cirrus pilot have the same mentality as the Volvo driver?

 

Is the Cirrus the modern version of the 'fork tail doctor killer'?

 

 

[David Isaac]

Steve, My argument isn't whether you spin or don't spin. You are correct the average GA pilot would be dead if they even put a Cessna in a spin ( except a Cessna is so stable it would probably come out on its own) because the average GA pilot has not been trained in spin entry or recovery. But if you took that argument to its logical conclusion we would fit CAPs to every GA aircraft in case they entered a spin and the pilot did not have the skill to recover. We don't do spin training in the PPL anymore because GA aircraft are so stable they don't spin ....?

 

My beef is the methodology Cirrus appear to have used to circumvent inherent stability requirements for GA aircraft. The Cirrus is required to have a CAPs in order to meet the certification requirements, other GA types are not. That in itself is a significant statement.

 

In answer to your last question the stats further up in this thread don't put the Cirrus in a very safe light in IMHO.

 

 

[aro]

If it was good enough for everyone else to have to comply and be able to recover from a conventional 1.5 turn spin without writing off the aircraft and passengers, why should Cirrus be exempt allowing a supplemental device that will ultimately right off the aircraft anyway.

Would you care to name another 4 seat aircraft in which you would prefer to be a back seat passenger when Joe Average Pilot encounters his first spin, with 4 POB?

 

While some other aircraft might recover from a spin without aggressive control inputs within the CG approved for spinning, it may be a totally different at further aft CG, where intentional spins are not approved.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Would you care to name another 4 seat aircraft in which you would prefer to be a back seat passenger when Joe Average Pilot encounters his first spin, with 4 POB?While some other aircraft might recover from a spin without aggressive control inputs within the CG approved for spinning, it may be a totally different at further aft CG, where intentional spins are not approved.

Again you miss my point, my beef is with the certification process where other manufacturers have had to make their aircraft more stable and Cirrus appear to have avoided some requirements by fitting a CAPs? And again another appearance of implying that we should fit CAPs to all aircraft in case they enter a spin. How does that argument have any validity in justifying a CAPs requirement for one aircraft type, a type that HAS to have a CAPs in order to meet certification.

To answer your question I wouldn't fly as a PAX with anyone I thought was stupid enough to put any aircraft in a spin with 4 POB. ... And there are no GA aircraft approved for spins with 4 POB to my knowledge at least none that I fly and all the ones that I fly that are spin approved, are only spin approved in the utility category with 2 POB.

 

I don't know how 'hot' a Cirrus is in a glide approach configuration. Maybe they are so hot that firing the CAPs is a safer option with limited clear areas. He'll in some cases a CAPs would be a good idea in any aircraft. BUT ... The Cirrus HAS TO HAVE ONE.

 

 

[Oscar]

One has to ask whether the appeal of buying an aircraft that relies on a 'bang off and then crash' device for spin recovery is, in fact, a reflection on the purchasers. The 'Volvo Driver' analogy seems somewhat appropriate.

 

Perhaps it is the aeronautical equivalent of ABS brakes and stability control. As someone who grew up with and participated in a number of forms of motorsport, both of these are nice things to have for vegged-out everyday driving - but are NOT a substitute for proper training and control reactions, and I prefer to NOT have them on the vehicles I drive.

 

As a trained and approved RFS 'bush driver' - meaning I am approved to take a fire-fighting vehicle with other personnel on board into the serious bush, on tracks you would not ordinarily consider as passable unless a hardcore 4WD driver, I can state categorically that ABS is the last damn thing you want on the vehicle. The standard action from any RFS member with 'bush driver' training if required to work on steep country is to remove the ABS fuse if ABS is fitted - ABS intervention will cause complete loss of braking control on slippery downhill slopes.

 

A BRS-type system should be an additional level of safety available if NO OTHER means of remediation for a predictable situation is available - i.e. structural / control circuit failure. That the FAA allowed an aircraft manufacturer to sell what is, effectively, a sub-standard product with an add-on feature that ameliorates the effects of the lack of conformance to the required standard, is a serious question. That - as a result of the bi-lateral agreement with the USA, Australia has to accept this aircraft - is an issue that should also cause concern.

 

 

[David Isaac]

And just to add some clarity around this 'spin certification' issue, Cessna 180s, 182s, 185s, 206s are not spin approved, but they meet the spin stability certification requirements. They are NOT approved for intentional spins. The C150, 152, 172 are spin approved, but only in the utility category, they are training aircraft. BTW, the Cessna Skycatcher is NOT approved for intentional spins.

 

So we are not talking about spin approved aircraft here in the general sense we are just talking about GA aircraft that are required to meet certain inherent spin stability requirements for ordinary GA certification. That is the ability to recover from a spin in a specified number of rotations, again NOT spin approved aircraft.

 

It appears the Cirrus circumvented the stability requirements by adding a supplementary CAPs which became mandatory for ordinary GA certification.

 

Now if I have got that wrong, someone please correct me.

 

 

[aro]

Again you miss my point, my beef is with the certification process where other manufacturers have had to make their aircraft more stable and Cirrus appear to have avoided some requirements by fitting a CAPs?

I think you missed my point. Certification is about safety, not about a level playing field. In an unintentional spin with 4 POB, are the occupants more or less likely to be killed in a Cirrus than in e.g. a PA28 or C172? Maybe you could look at it the other way - C172 etc. have to be able to recover from a spin (hopefully! but possibly dependent on CG, rigging & pilot skill) BECAUSE they don't have airframe parachutes?

 

My understanding is that making an aircraft more spin resistant can make it more difficult to recover if you actually do get it to spin, so perhaps this is also a factor - if it is more difficult to induce a spin, does that make it safer? If you have to make it easier to spin in order to make recovery easier, does that make it safer?

 

In the certification process there are cases where one safety feature can allow others to be waived. For example, multi engine aircraft don't have the same stall speed requirements as single engine aircraft, presumably because the likelihood of off airport landings is considered lower. Ultimately it is about the overall safety of the aircraft.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Image that if you had a wheel drive aircraft, you could land anywhere and just toddle off!

 

 

[frank marriott]

Lot of emphasis here on spin and recovery. Perhaps flying in a manner that won't cause a spin is the answer. A spin close to the ground will most likely be unrecoverable anyway.

 

I have never unintentionally spun an aircraft, and intentionally only in aerobatic aircraft - safer that way.

 

Perhaps this idea has something to do with it not being in the PPL & RAA syllabus.

 

 

[JG3]

If your interested in stats for the CirrusThe Cirrus models take up a couple of pages for an aircraft type in the safety database since 2002, taken a few lives in the process.

 

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=SR22&page=1

 

Alf

I just went through a lot of that data base. Taken a whole lot of lives!

 

This was the 55th deployment of the CAPS chute.

 

All the ones that used the chute resulted in survived occupants, minimal injuries.

 

Of all the attempts to fly the aircraft down, there are many (mostly) fatalities.....

 

Also quite a few fatalities during take-off and other maneuvers. Must be a very unforgiving aircraft....

 

And a surprising number of engine failures!

 

JG