Pilot pulls 'cute in MD

I don't read the pilot's account as meaning "the door popped open, so I pulled the chute", nor as "the aircraft was uncontrollable, so I pulled the chute".

The pilot's account is a bit hard to decipher, but a literal translation seems to be:
- door popped open near base of clouds, though not clear whether "in it" or "just below it"
- pilot decides to turn back
- plane enters unusual attitudes, not clear why. Lost it in IMC? Fussing with door?
- pilot seems to regain control, in VMC, at 100kts, but is lost.
- pilot thinks he's about to stall, though not clear why.
- pilot responds by hitting auto-leveler. Again, not clear why.
- pilot soon after deploys chute. Again, not entirely clear why.

There are just too many details missing from the story to piece it together. Makes me wonder if this is done intentionally.

I can't help but read this as a pilot operating in a panicky mode. It almost sounds like the chute wasn't pulled so much in response to a calculated decision, or even as a knee-jerk in response to instantaneous circumstances, but that he had crossed some threshold of stress from the preceding events, and simply "bailed", both figuratively and literally.
-harry
 
Depends on whether the insurance company thinks it's cheaper to pay for replacement airplanes or replacement people.
Ron Wanttaja

That's why I specified hull insurance. Passenger liability might cost less with the 'chute. The net result might be a saw-off.

Dan
 
If the door hadn't come unlatched, would the flight have been a routine event? Does your syllabus as a CFI include doors popping open?

Thanks Bruce, that's exactly what I was going to say.

Based on what we know, this guy wasn't proficient enough to be flying an airplane. There wasn't a significant weather issue, nothing wrong with the airplane, no medical problem - there shouldn't be a need to destroy the plane and convert a perfectly routine situation into an emergency that could potentially be deadly. Scary...and his reasons? "I was close to the FRZ"? I've seen the FRZ on the G1000 (I imagine it's similar on the Avidyne), and it's a big circle that you can't possibly miss. Wow.

And unlike others, I do think this guy can be faulted for his actions. He already put his life in great jeopardy by flying at all. Pulling the chute doesn't ensure a survivable landing. Given that he was unable to be PIC of an aircraft, it was probably his only way out, but it gives the rest of us a bad name. Quite frankly, if I, as a non-pilot, heard about stuff like this, it would make me reconsider getting into a private airplane.

-Felix
 
Fly whatever you want, just don't ever have a bad day? How many PPL's can pass that test?

Well, I'm not gong to be so charitable. I'm 54 years old and have a LOT of flying under my belt. Asia, North Pacific, CONUS, etc. etc.

If he has to pull the chute for that conditon, his Pilot certificate needs to be "limited to operation of BRS equipped aircraft".

Once he lost it, Okay, pull it. I mean his ship has not one but TWO easy buttons, the big blue one and the RED T-handled one.

I've had more than doors come open in IMC and you figure it out. You stay cool. Or you pull the handle and.....sigh.
 
I can't help but read this as a pilot operating in a panicky mode. It almost sounds like the chute wasn't pulled so much in response to a calculated decision, or even as a knee-jerk in response to instantaneous circumstances, but that he had crossed some threshold of stress from the preceding events, and simply "bailed", both figuratively and literally.
-harry
This ia what I took from the article.
 
If the door hadn't come unlatched, would the flight have been a routine event? Does your syllabus as a CFI include doors popping open?
No, and that's a fair point, but the syllabus can't possibly include every abnormal situation. I believe that's why ADM is so important. I can't see any justification why a reasonably proficient pilot would have to respond to this situation in the way he did. It's an unproportional response.

FWIW, I've has the passenger door come open as a new pilot at night shortly after rotation and I'd consider that similar to discovering a bee in the cockpit. Distracting, but by no means an emergency situation...
 
Fly whatever you want, just don't ever have a bad day? How many PPL's can pass that test?
I've had many bad days, Wayne, and never had to rely on my non existent blue "Easy" button nor my nonexistent Chute. Nor the weakest guy in the squadron in the other seat.

The manual for the "blue" easy button is fascinating. There are about a dozen specs as to rates of airspeed, turn, climb, bank etc that it will and will not be able to level. The limiting factor is the lack of autothrottle. I'll bet that PIC never read that section.....
 
I'm not saying the guy was the sharpest knife in the drawer, and in retrospect I think he knows he blew the egg money. It was a pitiful performance, he came unwound and everybody knows it.

Fact is (IMO) we've got a lot more Chucky Cheese's than Chuck Yeager's flying around out there in whatever they can afford, which appears to be the biggest differentiator insofar as who flies what. When you read the NTSB reports, do they sound more like this guy or Gary Cooper at 11:59?

All that said (ad infinitum) I think we have to tread lightly when the less- than-stalwarts pull the handle. If "knowing your limitations" means that you buy one with a chute because you acknowledge that you are prone to throw up your dress in the clutch, then the chute was money well spent and you can live to fly another day. Whether you should take a hard look at your training, proficiency, aptitude and ADM is another story, but the guy is still here to address those issues. Too many of his ilk are not.





I've had many bad days, Wayne, and never had to rely on my non existent blue "Easy" button nor my nonexistent Chute. Nor the weakest guy in the squadron in the other seat.

The manual for the "blue" easy button is fascinating. There are about a dozen specs as to rates of airspeed, turn, climb, bank etc that it will and will not be able to level. The limiting factor is the lack of autothrottle. I'll bet that PIC never read that section.....
 
I'm not saying the guy was the sharpest knife in the drawer, and in retrospect I think he knows he blew the egg money. It was a pitiful performance, he came unwound and everybody knows it.

Fact is (IMO) we've got a lot more Chucky Cheese's than Chuck Yeager's flying around out there in whatever they can afford, which appears to be the biggest differentiator insofar as who flies what. When you read the NTSB reports, do they sound more like this guy or Gary Cooper at 11:59?

All that said (ad infinitum) I think we have to tread lightly when the less- than-stalwarts pull the handle. If "knowing your limitations" means that you buy one with a chute because you acknowledge that you are prone to throw up your dress in the clutch, then the chute was money well spent and you can live to fly another day. Whether you should take a hard look at your training, proficiency, aptitude and ADM is another story, but the guy is still here to address those issues. Too many of his ilk are not.

+100

Very well said.
 
Fact is (IMO) we've got a lot more Chucky Cheese's than Chuck Yeager's flying around out there in whatever they can afford, which appears to be the biggest differentiator insofar as who flies what. When you read the NTSB reports, do they sound more like this guy or Gary Cooper at 11:59?
:eek:And that is why my initial comment needs re-iteration. "Privileges limited to a/c with BRS" need apply. And it was only partially facetious.

What do we do, limit his medical certificate to "privileges limited to non-stressful conditions?" There is a thin line between the illnesses of stress disorders and operational incompentency due to stress. I make that decision - a tough one, about once per year in the office, and am usually an airman advocate. But ONCE in a great while, there's someone who I KNOW should not be PIC. I usually don't medically challenge them, but instead allow the community of aviatiors, CFIs and ATCers to help us get the guy operationally re-evaluated. It's obvious by this Cirruser's own story telling, that this guy should NOT be PIC.

Sorry to be noncharitable Wayne. I can screw up, too. But this is ridiculous. In the USN, if you do something really stupid.....as in "He blew the egg money"........priceless. your wings get revoked. It's called the "board of inquiry".
 
Last edited:
I'm fairly certain the decision to include the BRS chute was made long before the issue of spin recovery...

The Klapmier brothers have stated before that when they decided to abandon the VK30(?) experimental design and come up with a certified product that they had already concluded that BRS was something they wanted to have. It might be true that once that decision was made they went from there to the idea that the chute could be used to offset spin testing and compliance.

Alan Klapmeier wanted the chute after he had a mid-air which killed the other pilot.
 
The Cirrus has a chute for an excellent reason, it's because the customers want one.
-harry
 
I recently did a little research into the spin certification story on the Cirri for an acquaintance. It may have some bearing here....
It looks as if it is possible to recover an SR-20 from a spin, but perhaps not well enough to meet the spin certification standards: "Section 23.221 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 23.221) requires that single-engine, normal category airplanes demonstrate compliance with either the one-turn spin recovery or the spin-resistant requirements. The airplane, for spin recovery compliance, must recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after the controls have been applied for recovery. The Cirrus SR20/SR22 are not certificated to meet the spin recovery requirements or spin resistant requirements of 14 CFR 23.221. Instead, Cirrus installed Cirrus Airplane Parachute System (CAPS) that was FAA-approved as part of the SR20/SR22 type design." -- http://regulations.vlex.com/vid/airworthiness-directives-cirrus-design-corp-22903658

and

"b. Spin Behavior
i. Test Matrix. A limited investigation of the SR20 spin behavior has been completed and results are contained in Cirrus Design reports 12419, title, and 15568, title. The incipient spin and recovery characteristics were examined during more than 60 total spin entries covering the following configurations.
[see chart at reference -- Grant]
1. All spins conducted at gross weight.
2. Also evaluated accelerated entries, 30 degree banked turn entries, and effects of ailerons against the spin direction.
ii. Results. The aircraft recovered within one turn in all cases examined. Recovery controls were to reduce power, neutralize ailerons, apply full rudder opposite to spin, and to apply immediate full forward (nose down) pitch control. Altitude loss from spin entry to recovery ranged from 1,200 – 1,800 feet. Detail results can be found in the above referenced reports.
iii. Comments. No spin matrix less than that prescribed in AC23-8A or AC23-15, can determine that all configurations are recoverable. It must be assumed that the SR20 has some unrecoverable characteristics. In the SR20 proper execution of recovery control movements is necessary to affect recovery, and aircraft may become unrecoverable with incorrect control inputs. These spins enabled Cirrus to gain additional understanding of both the stall departure characteristics of the airplane and the necessary spin recovery techniques. "
-- http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/misc/3-105960-Cirrusstall-spinreport.pdf

Below is some of the other information I gathered:

http://www.whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx

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.

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.
============
From their manual (2005)

Safety Information SR20

Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS)

Deployment

The Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) is designed to lower the aircraft and its passengers to the ground in the event of a life threatening
emergency. However, because CAPS deployment is expected to result in damage to the airframe and, depending upon adverse external factors such as high deployment speed, low altitude, rough terrain or high wind conditions, may result in severe injury or death to the aircraft occupants, its use should not be taken lightly. Instead, possible CAPS activation scenarios should be well thought out and mentally practiced by every SR20 pilot.
The following discussion is meant to guide your thinking about CAPS activation. It is intended to be informative, not directive. It is the responsibility of you, the pilot, to determine when and how the CAPS will be used.

[...]

Loss of Control

Loss of control may result from many situations, such as: a control system failure (disconnected or jammed controls); severe wake turbulence, severe turbulence causing upset, severe airframe icing, or sustained pilot disorientation caused by vertigo or panic; or a spiral/spin. If loss of control occurs, determine if the airplane can be recovered. If control cannot be regained, the CAPS should be activated. This decision should be made prior to your pre-determined decision altitude (2,000’ AGL, as discussed below).


==============
http://chesavtraining.com/Cirrus-vs-Columbia.htm (Scott Denstaedt)

BRS and Spin Certification

Of course, one major difference between Cirrus and Columbia is that Cirrus has not been through any formal spin certification. The Cirrus POH only allows for a pilot to activate the Ballistic Recovery System (BRS) known as the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) once the airplane departs from controlled flight. Some Cirrus owners will tell you that they didn’t buy a Cirrus because of CAPS. However, many have purchased a Cirrus for this very reason or for the edification of their spouse.
===============

===============
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20

In terms of avoiding an accident, one problem with the Cirrus is its unforgiving handling compared to other basic four-seaters. The plane is harder to keep level with rudders in a stall than a Cessna or Diamond; if in a deep uncoordinated stall, the Cirrus wants to drop a wing and go into a spin. Thanks to a "split-airfoil" wing design, in which the inner portion of the wing has a higher angle of attack than the outer portion, the Cirrus gives more of a stall buffet warning than many airplanes. The outer portion of the wings, which are in front of the ailerons, are still flying and permitting the pilot to control roll with the yoke, even as the inner sections of the wings may be stalled and creating a warning buffet. This illustrates one of the advantages of composite construction; you could build a metal wing like this, but it would be very costly. For pilots accustomed to learning about an impending stall by feeling reduced airloads on the flight controls, the Cirrus provides much less stall warning. This is due to spring cartridges that continue to resist flight control movement even when the airplane is not moving. In other words, the flight controls feel similar whether you're flying or stalled.

A pilot with 800 hours in the SR22 noted that in his experience it is not nearly as docile as the Cessna 172 and Piper Arrow that he had trained on. A CFI ("certificated flight instructor") who now flies the $3 million Pilatus PC-12 says "The Cirrus is a plane designed to go fast. You shouldn't be flying it slow. It is trickier to handle in a stall than a 172 or the Pilatus."

Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover, according to the test pilots. Remember that spin testing in certification is done with a special tail parachute for breaking the spin that can then be cut away inflight. NASA puts this best:

"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."
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/spin_technology.html (contains some photos of spin-recovery parachutes)

You can see videos of such parachutes in action at http://www.airbornesystems-na.com/spinstall.html.

You're not going to be flying with a certification-testing parachute, however. A Cirrus pilot's only option is to pull the big main CAPS parachute and hope that he or she has not built up too much speed for the cords. A couple of new owners in Parish, NY managed to stall and spin their plane all the way down from 5000' AGL on April 24, 2002. Multi-engine planes don't have to be spin certified, and a lot of them are probably even nastier in a stall than the Cirrus, but very seldom are they sold to beginner pilots. A lot of single-engine four-seaters, notably Pipers and the Diamond Star, will just mush downward if you cut the power and hold the stick or yoke all the way back. Nearly all single-engine four-seaters will come out of a spin by themselves if you stop holding pro-spin rudder and let go of the yoke. The Cirrus demands more respect and more training.

Ideally you should do your stall practice with the plane loaded up with passengers and baggage. Many four-seaters, including the Cirrus, take on a different personality when light on fuel and only the two front seats are occupied versus when fully loaded with a more aft center of gravity.
==================
http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2003/sp0302.html
The FAA's Small Aircraft Directorate, which issued the Cirrus SR20 and SR22 type certificates, looked at more than 1,700 stall/spin accidents dating back to 1973 and concluded that 93 percent of those airplanes were at or below pattern altitude — too low for spin recovery. The current one-turn spin recovery requirement remains essentially unchanged since 1945, so inquiring minds asked what would happen if the departure from controlled flight, the stall, was made more difficult. Would fewer accidents occur? If the stall is prevented the spin can't happen. More important, how many lives could be saved if the aircraft's stall characteristics were friendlier?

NASA asked the same question in the late 1970s. Paul Stough and Dan DiCarlo reviewed several aerodynamic approaches to the problem in a recent paper, "Spin Resistance Development for Small Airplanes — A Retrospective." If the wing tips stall last, the pilot can maintain lateral control well into the stall. In a well-behaved airplane, the inboard section of the wing stalls first and may cause buffeting and pitching without rolling off. If the pilot is paying any attention at all, the shaking, the decay of control response, and the pitch movement should provide ample warning to reduce the angle of attack and start flying again before the aircraft departs controlled flight.
[...]
According to Stough and DiCarlo, "Both the Cirrus and Lancair were certified using spin-resistance certification standards; however, neither was certified as fully spin resistant." Cirrus, which had already made the decision to include a standard parachute system to solve other safety problems, proposed this as an equivalent level of safety. If the pilot somehow managed to get beyond the enhanced stall characteristics and into a spin, there was a way to escape.
[...]
According to the SR22 POH, the airplane is not approved for spins, and the only method of spin recovery is activating the CAPS. If the airplane departs controlled flight, the CAPS must be deployed immediately. Spin entry is unlikely with proper airmanship, including the caveat never to abuse "the flight controls with accelerated inputs close to the stall." An abrupt wing drop in this case may lead to a spin or spiral, and it may be difficult to determine which. The POH notes that the minimum demonstrated altitude loss for a CAPS deployment is 920 feet from a one-turn spin, and pilots are cautioned not to "waste time and altitude trying to recover from a spiral/spin before activating CAPS."
============
And a thread on this topic. The source is, of course, somewhat more unverified than the rest of the stuff one finds on the Internet.
http://www.studentpilot.com/interact/forum/printthread.php?t=34778&pp=40
 
Grant,

Thanks for the work you put into that post. There's a lot of great information there. I'll be saving a copy to a file with the clickable links, giving you credit.

Between Phillip and Bridgette's writings, there's an eye opener on the Cirrus with regard to spins.
 
Grant,

Thanks for the work you put into that post. There's a lot of great information there. I'll be saving a copy to a file with the clickable links, giving you credit.

Between Phillip and Bridgette's writings, there's an eye opener on the Cirrus with regard to spins.


Hear! Hear! Well done, Grant!

I second the motion....
 
I wonder about this statement, however: "Thanks to a "split-airfoil" wing design, in which the inner portion of the wing has a higher angle of attack than the outer portion, the Cirrus gives more of a stall buffet warning than many airplanes. The outer portion of the wings, which are in front of the ailerons, are still flying and permitting the pilot to control roll with the yoke, even as the inner sections of the wings may be stalled and creating a warning buffet. This illustrates one of the advantages of composite construction; you could build a metal wing like this, but it would be very costly. "

AFAIK, every Cessna, Bonanza, and Cherokee (non-Hershey bar) wing I've flown has this washout built into the wing (unless Philip is talking about a more pronounced washout?)
 
AFAIK, every Cessna, Bonanza, and Cherokee (non-Hershey bar) wing I've flown has this washout built into the wing (unless Philip is talking about a more pronounced washout?)
It's not a washout. The Cirrus has two different airfoil shapes, split at mid-wing; the outer leading edge is an inch or so further forward from the inner leading edge.
 
Right -- which was achieved in metal wings a long, long time ago...
Yeah, but doing it that way allows them to have the inner section stall, and the outer section keep flying for quite a bit longer, as opposed to a simple washout, where the stall progresses across the wing continuously as the angle of attack increases.
 
All that said (ad infinitum) I think we have to tread lightly when the less- than-stalwarts pull the handle. If "knowing your limitations" means that you buy one with a chute because you acknowledge that you are prone to throw up your dress in the clutch, then the chute was money well spent and you can live to fly another day. Whether you should take a hard look at your training, proficiency, aptitude and ADM is another story, but the guy is still here to address those issues. Too many of his ilk are not.

:eek:
What do we do, limit his medical certificate to "privileges limited to non-stressful conditions?" There is a thin line between the illnesses of stress disorders and operational incompentency due to stress. I make that decision - a tough one, about once per year in the office, and am usually an airman advocate. But ONCE in a great while, there's someone who I KNOW should not be PIC. I usually don't medically challenge them, but instead allow the community of aviatiors, CFIs and ATCers to help us get the guy operationally re-evaluated. It's obvious by this Cirruser's own story telling, that this guy should NOT be PIC.


The two of you are agreeing for the most part. These statements are also what I agree with. It seems this person got into a situation which had too many distractions hitting him at the same time. He was entering IMC, he was near frustrating airspace, he was concentrating on flying the airplane where and when he should be for IFR operation, and he had a difficulty with the airplane that he was unprepared for. He was incapable of handling them all at once. That is something that comes from experience, not book knowledge.

Some people are absolutely incapable of handling multiple problems with distractions all at once. As one gains experience, one learns how to deal with each problem in the order necessary. This guy sounds like he was very tense and stressed just to be flying IFR in IMC. I know this feeling well. I deal with it every time I fly in IMC. It is something I have learned to master over time, but it is still there. I have had problems while flying IMC as well, but I have, so far, been able to deal with them appropriately. I can see how anyone with a worse feeling than myself in IMC, could easily lose their ability to cope when faced with a problem they haven't dealt with before.

These kinds of people should not be allowed to fly IMC alone until they gain proficiency. The problem comes in others knowing they have a problem, and in identifying when they have mastered the problem. For some, and I include myself in this, it takes hundreds of hours flying in differing conditions to gain mastery over the stress. And for some, it is never mastered. It is also a feeling that returns after a period of inactivity, so it has to be mastered again and again.

For these people, it is a great benefit to have a BRS installed in the airframe. It should not be used as a crutch, and in this kind of circumstance, its use should be evaluated by experts and determined whether the individual needs to have some significant remedial training to continue, and in what capacity.
 
I've posted enough on this, but found myself wondering last night what the outcome would have been if he had decided to buy a Cessna 350/400 instead?

The two of you are agreeing for the most part. These statements are also what I agree with. It seems this person got into a situation which had too many distractions hitting him at the same time. He was entering IMC, he was near frustrating airspace, he was concentrating on flying the airplane where and when he should be for IFR operation, and he had a difficulty with the airplane that he was unprepared for. He was incapable of handling them all at once. That is something that comes from experience, not book knowledge.

Some people are absolutely incapable of handling multiple problems with distractions all at once. As one gains experience, one learns how to deal with each problem in the order necessary. This guy sounds like he was very tense and stressed just to be flying IFR in IMC. I know this feeling well. I deal with it every time I fly in IMC. It is something I have learned to master over time, but it is still there. I have had problems while flying IMC as well, but I have, so far, been able to deal with them appropriately. I can see how anyone with a worse feeling than myself in IMC, could easily lose their ability to cope when faced with a problem they haven't dealt with before.

These kinds of people should not be allowed to fly IMC alone until they gain proficiency. The problem comes in others knowing they have a problem, and in identifying when they have mastered the problem. For some, and I include myself in this, it takes hundreds of hours flying in differing conditions to gain mastery over the stress. And for some, it is never mastered. It is also a feeling that returns after a period of inactivity, so it has to be mastered again and again.

For these people, it is a great benefit to have a BRS installed in the airframe. It should not be used as a crutch, and in this kind of circumstance, its use should be evaluated by experts and determined whether the individual needs to have some significant remedial training to continue, and in what capacity.
 
Right -- which was achieved in metal wings a long, long time ago...

Even the 172 has more than just washout. The airfoil section at the root is about 12% thickness, and around 7% at the tip. That's an airfoil change. The roll control still responds in the stall. It takes a lot of power to get anything like a real stall in that airplane. Even then it doesn't want to spin to the right worth beans. The 150, which spun much more readily, would sometimes just rumble around a turn when I was trying to demontrate a skidding-turn stall-spin. Full left rudder, full right aileron, full up-elevator, and power off; it sometimes just would not spin. Frustrating.

The Citabria, now...

Dan
 
All of the above. Would he have launched, how would/might the headlines have been different, etc?

There's an interesting article in April '09 Smithsonian magazine about the psychology of what behavioral shrinks call "risk compensation." It's apparently a respected, acknowledged theory that we all have some level of risk we're willing to accept to accomplish something we want. Believers of this theory state that as you introduce things to make something safer that we'll seek ways to try to bring our own personal risk/reward equation into balance by accepting other risks we might not have without the improvement.

One of the studies they cite is an improvement in parachute rip cord reliability resulted in sky divers attempting openings at a lower altitude.
 
There's an interesting article in April '09 Smithsonian magazine about the psychology of what behavioral shrinks call "risk compensation." It's apparently a respected, acknowledged theory that we all have some level of risk we're willing to accept to accomplish something we want. Believers of this theory state that as you introduce things to make something safer that we'll seek ways to try to bring our own personal risk/reward equation into balance by accepting other risks we might not have without the improvement.

One of the studies they cite is an improvement in parachute rip cord reliability resulted in sky divers attempting openings at a lower altitude.

It's the helmet effect.

People will ride motorcycles much faster while wearing a helmet than without.

I think it carries over to cars, as well. People drive cars at ridiculously high speeds because they "feel" protected.
 
A door opening is not a benign event in every aircraft. The Zodiac will fly if the canopy pops open, but it takes full power to maintain a barely flying airspeed.

Some canopies can be a problem however have you seen a SR22? I haven't flown one however I have seen one and flown with released doors on other similar door designed airplanes. A SR22 has big doors with hinges on the forward side of the door. They open forward and upward a bit. It doesn't look any different than flying a Cherokee with a released door which is a complete total non-event. The wind will keep it pinned against the airframe. Noisy, yes. Distraction, nothing beyond cold air blowing up your shirt. Push it open and let the wind shut it or if that's too much of a hassle, fly normally back to an airport and land.

A released latch on a benign door doesn't justify running into the ground or pulling a parachute handle. Fly the plane, not the door.
 
AFAIK, every Cessna, Bonanza, and Cherokee (non-Hershey bar) wing I've flown has this washout built into the wing (unless Philip is talking about a more pronounced washout?)

It's not a washout. The Cirrus has two different airfoil shapes, split at mid-wing; the outer leading edge is an inch or so further forward from the inner leading edge.
Here ya go... Taken moments ago from a collection of Cirri in our hangar.
 

Attachments

  • Cirrus Wing 1.jpg
    Cirrus Wing 1.jpg
    422.7 KB · Views: 8
  • Cirrus Wing 2.jpg
    Cirrus Wing 2.jpg
    398.8 KB · Views: 8
  • Cirrus Wing 3.jpg
    Cirrus Wing 3.jpg
    369.4 KB · Views: 11
Thanks, Ken.

I still don't see how composite construction makes this any easier than metal or even fabric.
Easier to shape the material rather than build a frame structure to sustain the load at such a point? I'm sure you can build the framing but it might be substantially heavier.
 
Thanks, Ken.

I still don't see how composite construction makes this any easier than metal or even fabric.

Both metal and fabric have rather limited compound-curve-forming abilities. Composites can be shaped into anything at all. There isn't much compound curving at this airfoil change, though, and the new Quest Kodiak has the same thing in metal. As for the rest of the Cirrus, it would be difficult indeed, and fearsomely expensive, to form such shapes from aluminum. Fabric would be impossible, since the underlying structure would be full of angles. Cheapest would be stamped steel sheet, like automobiles, but weight would prevent any flight.

Dan
 
Both metal and fabric have rather limited compound-curve-forming abilities. Composites can be shaped into anything at all. There isn't much compound curving at this airfoil change, though, and the new Quest Kodiak has the same thing in metal. As for the rest of the Cirrus, it would be difficult indeed, and fearsomely expensive, to form such shapes from aluminum. Fabric would be impossible, since the underlying structure would be full of angles. Cheapest would be stamped steel sheet, like automobiles, but weight would prevent any flight.

Dan

No doubt the rest of the airframe requires composite construction.

I just couldn't see how the Cirrus wing was heretofore impossible in metal or fabric.
 
"The plane entered some unusual attitudes."

Or did the pilot cause the plane to enter some unusual attitudes?

Sounds like an in-air freakout - door is ajar, about to enter clouds, I'm hand flying, haven't checked in with Potomac, should I turn around? But shouldn't I contact Potomac? No. Close the door? I can't. Gee those clouds are getting close! Man, this airplane is out of control - watch that AI go back and forth!!! I need to call Tracon. Oh shoot, what about the ADIZ? They'll shoot me down! WHere is that blue button?? THERE it is --oooops I feel like I'm tipping over!! Agggh!! Pull the chute!!
 
Frankly, I think that in general Cirrus pilots should pull their chutes MORE often, not less. IMHO, better to pull the chute, live and learn than to go splat and give us all more bad press we don't need.

So, while this guy may not have made the best decisions elsewhere in the flight, IMO the decision to pull the chute was the right one, for that pilot.
 
As I read his own telling, he never entered the clouds.
AWOS reported 400' OVC. It's my home airport and several friends were milling about that day and confirm that the reliable AWOS was correct. This guy went into the soup at 400' OVC.

"The plane entered some unusual attitudes."

Or did the pilot cause the plane to enter some unusual attitudes?

Sounds like an in-air freakout - door is ajar, about to enter clouds, I'm hand flying, haven't checked in with Potomac, should I turn around? But shouldn't I contact Potomac? No. Close the door? I can't. Gee those clouds are getting close! Man, this airplane is out of control - watch that AI go back and forth!!! I need to call Tracon. Oh shoot, what about the ADIZ? They'll shoot me down! WHere is that blue button?? THERE it is --oooops I feel like I'm tipping over!! Agggh!! Pull the chute!!
Bingo! +100000

And no, Cirrus pilots should NOT just pull their chutes. This guy "landed" less than 100' from a very busy road in a fairly industrial area. Had he pancaked on that road, someone on the ground could have died, all because he panicked and bailed.

He freaked out and pulled the chute, when he should have just flown the airplane. Did the chute save his life? No doubt. But only because he was not proficient enough to save his own life.

The good news is we all get to learn from this. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. Learn it, know it, live it.

Adam
 
As a newly certificated Private Pilot, I read this story and I just cringe. Here is an experienced pilot with an IFR rating, 300+ hours of experience, plenty of time in the same Cirrus aircraft, and he becomes disoriented, ostensibly, because of a door opening?

I found the comment " I was hand flying the plane" to be the critical factor in the story. Maybe he had become overly reliant on the autopilot over the years and was really uncomfortable with actually "flying" the aircraft?

The cynical side of me believes that maybe he wanted to destroy the plane? Maybe he hit hard financial times and saw this as a way out of a large financial committment?

Either way, at least he survived and did not hurt anyone else.
 
Training for the popped open door scenario is common regardless of aircraft speed, if the aircraft itself is appropriate for it. It's so easy for a CFI to set it up during a lesson or two, and such a common occurance, why not?

I'm completely with you on that, that's something that should be in every training sylabus, and it should be done around 200', because that's where it usually happens, actually, the times it's happened to me it was right after it came off the ground.
 
Back
Top