Ignoring the Ops Book?

spiderweb

spiderweb

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
9,488
Display Name
Ben
I have flown in the SR20 with a few instructors now. The Ops Book suggests that above a certain altitude, CAPS should be deployed--basically for all situations.

I've had instructors say, "Do what it says--it's your best chance," and I've had some who have said that it depends; if there's a good place to land, they'd prefer to do that.

I tend to side with that last statement. Also, I was thinking that if one lost the engine at a higher altitude, one could at least try to find a place to land, and have a "red line" decision altitude to commit either to that, or to CAPS deployment.
 
What was the age of the instructors who recommended the pull vs. those who wanted to wait?

spiderweb said:
I have flown in the SR20 with a few instructors now. The Ops Book suggests that above a certain altitude, CAPS should be deployed--basically for all situations.

I've had instructors say, "Do what it says--it's your best chance," and I've had some who have said that it depends; if there's a good place to land, they'd prefer to do that.

I tend to side with that last statement. Also, I was thinking that if one lost the engine at a higher altitude, one could at least try to find a place to land, and have a "red line" decision altitude to commit either to that, or to CAPS deployment.
Click to expand...
 
Keep this in mind....the Ops manual probably says that as a CYA for Cirrus. In other words, when the lawsuits come around after the crash, Cirrus can say 'we recommend chute deployment in our manual and they never used the chute'. They figure that there will be more accidents without the chute being used than death or injury with the chute use. And Cirrus doesn't care if the airplane is usable again after an accident. That is between you and your insurance company......they can always make more.

Personally, I agree with your thoughts Ben. If you have the altitude, use it, but always keep in mind the CAPS min deployment altitude and use that as a decision point. Basically if you don't feel comfortable/confident by the time you approach that altitude, then pull the chute.
 
An argument that will never end until all of us who are above 30 at this point in time are gone. Then there will be agreement.
 
spiderweb said:
I have flown in the SR20 with a few instructors now. The Ops Book suggests that above a certain altitude, CAPS should be deployed--basically for all situations.
Click to expand...
I have a copy of the book, and it definitely does not recommend CAPS deployment "for all situations." Can you be a bit more specific about what situations are under discussion here?
 
Ron Levy said:
I have a copy of the book, and it definitely does not recommend CAPS deployment "for all situations." Can you be a bit more specific about what situations are under discussion here?
Click to expand...

Engine loss at altitude, basically. Of course you're right--things like engine loss at 500 feet, fires, etc. are not helped by deploying the chute.
 
spiderweb said:
Engine loss at altitude, basically. Of course you're right--things like engine loss at 500 feet, fires, etc. are not helped by deploying the chute.
Click to expand...
Your original post said nothing about the nature of the emergency, so there was no way of knowing just what emergencies you were talking about.

As to engine loss at altitude ("Engine Failure in Flight" is the book title), that EP has six steps all related to engine restart, none of which include CAPS deployment. If you get past those six, step 7 sends you to "Engine Airstart or Forced Landing, as required." Engine Airstart has 11 restart steps before sending you to Forced Landing. In Forced Landing, there is a sentence in that paragraph saying "If flight conditions or terrain does not permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment may be required," but it then goes on with "Emergency Landing Without Engine Power," and that has 12 steps leading to a landing.

So, I'm not seeing where you get the idea that "The Ops Book suggests that above a certain altitude, CAPS should be deployed--basically for all situations" involving engine failure at altitude. In fact, The POH seems to indicate CAPS deployment is only a last resort if all else fails.

Note that I'm working out of the SR22 POH, as my SR20 book isn't handy but I'm pretty sure they're the same on this.
 
Ron Levy said:
Your original post said nothing about the nature of the emergency, so there was no way of knowing just what emergencies you were talking about.

As to engine loss at altitude ("Engine Failure in Flight" is the book title), that EP has six steps all related to engine restart, none of which include CAPS deployment. If you get past those six, step 7 sends you to "Engine Airstart or Forced Landing, as required." Engine Airstart has 11 restart steps before sending you to Forced Landing. In Forced Landing, there is a sentence in that paragraph saying "If flight conditions or terrain does not permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment may be required," but it then goes on with "Emergency Landing Without Engine Power," and that has 12 steps leading to a landing.

So, I'm not seeing where you get the idea that "The Ops Book suggests that above a certain altitude, CAPS should be deployed--basically for all situations" involving engine failure at altitude. In fact, The POH seems to indicate CAPS deployment is only a last resort if all else fails.

Note that I'm working out of the SR22 POH, as my SR20 book isn't handy but I'm pretty sure they're the same on this.
Click to expand...

Ron, you're right. I have to admit my laziness, and that I was working more from my experience with the CFIs than the book. After your earlier post, I went back and read the POH and Cirrus checklist. It is essentially the same as what you describe for the SR22.

So, although I was lazy, it does bring up an interesting point: Why do some CFIs teach that CAPS deployment is appropriate in more situations than is actually recommended or described in the Cirrus literature?
 
spiderweb said:
Perspective. There are two, 2009-2011.
Click to expand...

I assume that's a 3rd gen then.

The reason why I ask if the earlier Cirrus didn't have the best structural integrity for of field landing so a chute would be recommended in all situations. Latter Cirrus are supposed to be a bit better. Personally I would deploy the chute anywhere above 400ft AGL. See the chute on the Cirrus is not an added safety feature, it's the primary safety feature.

Also I heard (and this seems to make sense) that it's a good idea to use the chute if you're about to touch down and use it as a drag chute.
 
spiderweb said:
\Why do some CFIs teach that CAPS deployment is appropriate in more situations than is actually recommended or described in the Cirrus literature?
Click to expand...

Some instructors will teach by the book, and some will teach by what they think is right (which in my opinion is the better way to do it). There have been successful chute deployments bellow the published minimum altitude and above the published maximum speed.
Given that you don't want to crash land a Cirrus I think it's much better to deploy the chute.
 
MachFly said:
The reason why I ask if the earlier Cirrus didn't have the best structural integrity for of field landing so a chute would be recommended in all situations. Latter Cirrus are supposed to be a bit better. Personally I would deploy the chute anywhere above 400ft AGL. See the chute on the Cirrus is not an added safety feature, it's the primary safety feature.
Click to expand...
I don't have the earlier books handy, but I don't think that's what they say.

Also I heard (and this seems to make sense) that it's a good idea to use the chute if you're about to touch down and use it as a drag chute.
Click to expand...
I'm curious where you heard that, because it's not in the book, and I can think of a number of reasons why that might not be a good idea.
 
MachFly said:
Some instructors will teach by the book, and some will teach by what they think is right (which in my opinion is the better way to do it).
Click to expand...
It may be, if you have a very good understanding of the entire problem, and know with certainly why your answer is better. I feel that way about landing speeds in Cessnas like the 172, where the book-recommended 65-70 knots with full flaps causes a host of difficulties, and the basic FAA-recommended 1.3 Vs0 works much better. However,...
Given that you don't want to crash land a Cirrus I think it's much better to deploy the chute.
Click to expand...
...in this situation, I think you are assuming facts not in evidence about the structural integrity of the Cirrus design, and for that reason, are second-guessing the POH without sufficient justification.
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't have the earlier books handy, but I don't think that's what they say.
Click to expand...

The books don't say that, I noticed that from a number of past Cirrus crashes.
BTW if you like I can send you the books.

I'm curious where you heard that, because it's not in the book, and I can think of a number of reasons why that might not be a good idea.
Click to expand...

I don't remember. Why is it not a good idea?

Ron Levy said:
...in this situation, I think you are assuming facts not in evidence about the structural integrity of the Cirrus design, and for that reason, are second-guessing the POH without sufficient justification.
Click to expand...

I said that based on what usually happened in Cirrus crashes. Usually when you do an of field landing on unperfect terrain the engine compartment breaks and drops down, the firewall gets pushed into the cockpit and breaks the pilot's legs.
 
Seems like best way to not get a post crash fire in a Cirrus is to pull the chute......I'm actually pretty sure there has never been a post crash fire after CAPS deployment.
 
The CAPS supplement (section 10) of the Cirrus Perspective PIM recommends considering CAPS deployment for:

1. Mid-air collision
2. Structural Failure
3. Loss of control
4. Landing in inhospitable terrain
5. Pilot incapacitation

This is preceded by the following disclaimer:

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.

This section describes possible scenarios in which the activation of the CAPS might be appropriate. This list is not intended to be exclusive, but merely illustrative of the type of circumstances when CAPS deployment could be the only means of saving the occupants of the aircraft.
Click to expand...
 
DavidWhite said:
Seems like best way to not get a post crash fire in a Cirrus is to pull the chute......I'm actually pretty sure there has never been a post crash fire after CAPS deployment.
Click to expand...

I don't know exactly what you need to do to make a one burn, but I think your right about the CAPS.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
The CAPS supplement (section 10) of the Cirrus Perspective PIM recommends considering CAPS deployment for:

1. Mid-air collision
2. Structural Failure
3. Loss of control
4. Landing in inhospitable terrain
5. Pilot incapacitation

This is preceded by the following disclaimer:
Click to expand...

I think "inhospitable terrain" is defined as a field...with some small hills and grass. At least for the earlier models.
 
One of the obvious problems with the "now vs. later" argument is that a field that looks like a great emer landing area when viewed from cruise altitude can look a lot different on final when it's too late to pull.
 
MachFly said:
I said that based on what usually happened in Cirrus crashes. Usually when you do an of field landing on unperfect terrain the engine compartment breaks and drops down, the firewall gets pushed into the cockpit and breaks the pilot's legs.
Click to expand...

The G2 changed things to try to direct the engine below the cabin in a crash. I don't know how effective this change has been but I haven't seen any data that a Cirrus is any worse in this regard than other aircraft.

[EDITED TO ADD] Starting with the very first Cirrus, cabin integrity was a design goal. The panel and the use of a side yoke were partly aimed at improving crash safety. While there are design elements aimed at descent under canopy I don't know any of them that compromised off field crash worthiness. For example, the wheels are designed to fold into the wings and avoid the fuel tanks when descending under canopy. The seats have honeycomb aluminum as a crumple structure under them to absorb vertical impact. However, the seats are 26 G rated and later ones have air bags for the front seat occupants. The biggest negative to me is high landing speed combined with a small fixed (no belly landings) gear.
 
Last edited:
MachFly said:
I think "inhospitable terrain" is defined as a field...with some small hills and grass. At least for the earlier models.
Click to expand...

The reality of a Cirrus is different from a Cub or even a Bonanza. It is fixed gear with small tires. Add to that a 60 knot stall speed and an off field landing is very different in an SR22 than in a C172. There is the case of a Cirrus pilot who was negative on the usefulness of CAPS. He had plenty of altitude when his engine failed, saw what looked like a good field, and performed and off field landing. The nose wheel hit a mount, the plane flipped and he died. However, there was a very successful off field landing in the Florida Keys. This is more about odds than a yes/no type of answer. When people point to the data on percentages of successful off field landings they seem to forget that in many of those the plane was heavily damaged and in many people were seriously injured. Certainly you are more likely to be able to reuse the plane in an off field landing vs. a CAPS pull. However, you are more likely to live after a CAPS pull than an off field landing. Priorities.

People keep acting as if Cirrus details exactly when to use CAPS. The way I read the POH is that in most cases it is left up to the judgement of the pilot as opposed to being explicitly spelled out in the POH.
 
peppy said:
The G2 changed things to try to direct the engine below the cabin in a crash. I don't know how effective this change has been but I haven't seen any data that a Cirrus is any worse in this regard than other aircraft.

[EDITED TO ADD] Starting with the very first Cirrus, cabin integrity was a design goal. The panel and the use of a side yoke were partly aimed at improving crash safety. While there are design elements aimed at descent under canopy I don't know any of them that compromised off field crash worthiness. For example, the wheels are designed to fold into the wings and avoid the fuel tanks when descending under canopy. The seats have honeycomb aluminum as a crumple structure under them to absorb vertical impact. However, the seats are 26 G rated and later ones have air bags for the front seat occupants. The biggest negative to me is high landing speed combined with a small fixed (no belly landings) gear.
Click to expand...

I don't think the landing speed is all that fast. Short final is 75 KIAS, max gross.
 
peppy said:
The reality of a Cirrus is different from a Cub or even a Bonanza. It is fixed gear with small tires. Add to that a 60 knot stall speed and an off field landing is very different in an SR22 than in a C172. There is the case of a Cirrus pilot who was negative on the usefulness of CAPS. He had plenty of altitude when his engine failed, saw what looked like a good field, and performed and off field landing. The nose wheel hit a mount, the plane flipped and he died. However, there was a very successful off field landing in the Florida Keys. This is more about odds than a yes/no type of answer. When people point to the data on percentages of successful off field landings they seem to forget that in many of those the plane was heavily damaged and in many people were seriously injured. Certainly you are more likely to be able to reuse the plane in an off field landing vs. a CAPS pull. However, you are more likely to live after a CAPS pull than an off field landing. Priorities.

People keep acting as if Cirrus details exactly when to use CAPS. The way I read the POH is that in most cases it is left up to the judgement of the pilot as opposed to being explicitly spelled out in the POH.
Click to expand...

That is correct.
 
spiderweb said:
I don't think the landing speed is all that fast. Short final is 75 KIAS, max gross.
Click to expand...

What speed do you touch down at?


I seem to remember it being around 60 (at touchdown) as well.
 
Last edited:
75 KIAS is OK for the SR20, but for the SR22T, especially with air conditioning, you need a bit more (82-83) to have sufficient up-elevator authority for the flare thanks to the extra weight in the engine compartment. Straight SR22 is good around 78-80.
 
spiderweb said:
I don't think the landing speed is all that fast. Short final is 75 KIAS, max gross.
Click to expand...

Stall is 60 knots. That's 69 mph. Take a car. Remove the shocks. Place very tiny tires on it. Now drive over a field at about 70 mph. Now imagine a somewhat fragile nose gear that can dig in and flip the plane. All planes aren't the same. A Cub landing in a field is very different compared to an SR22.

Oh, for real fun drive down a road with a timer initialized by a random number generator. When it goes off, stop you small tire/no shock car and look around for a field. Pick the best one you can see and drive on it at 70.

I'm not saying you can't land a Cirrus in a field. It has been done. I'm just saying the risk is higher than a Piper Cub and that needs to be taken into account since there is another option in the Cirrus.
 
Ron Levy said:
75 KIAS is OK for the SR20, but for the SR22T, especially with air conditioning, you need a bit more (82-83) to have sufficient up-elevator authority for the flare thanks to the extra weight in the engine compartment. Straight SR22 is good around 78-80.
Click to expand...

A good NA SR22 speed over the numbers is 78 minus 1 knot for every 100# under max gross.
 
MachFly said:
What speed do you touch down at?


I seem to remember it being around 60 (at touchdown) as well.
Click to expand...

I don't know, because my eyes are outside. But I did ask a CFI to tell me what it was for one landing. He said 62.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top