Songwriter Brett James Cirrus SR22T Crash

midlifeflyer said:
I have done slow flight, stalls, and even falling leaf stalls in a Cirrus. Completely normal and benign response. The “equivalent level of safety” Cirrus demonstrated in lieu of spin recovery included not only CAPS but the split wing design - lower angle of incidence on the outer part of the wing, which allows more control in the stall.
Click to expand...
Not my experience. Why did they add a chute to get spin certified if the stall characteristics are so benign.
 
wellknow said:
Not my experience. Why did they add a chute to get spin certified if the stall characteristics are so benign.
Click to expand...
Firstly, it was about spin recovery, not stall characteristics. Two different requirements. People do get their private and commercial in a Cirrus, after all. Stall recovery demonstrations are a PTS/ACS requirement.

They didn’t “get spin certified.” The requirement was waived, the FAA accepting the ELOS provided by the wing and chute (mainly the chute).

I’ve never been interested enough to research it extensively. I’ve heard various accounts of the reason ranging from “they couldn’t” to “they didn’t want to because they felt they had something better and more modern to offer” all the way to, “they were spun in testing for EASA and recover normally.” I’ve tried to verify none of them.

So… since it was different than mine, what was your experience with Cirrus slow flight and stalls? Big wing drop? Sudden huge break with no warning? I don’t have a huge amount of time in them - a bit under 40 hours - but I really found it quite similar to the Diamonds at the performance edges.
 
Last edited:
During one of my instrument training flights, on the missed approach I applied full power, made my call and quickly touched the gps controls to either get the next heading to bug or or suspend the approach or something (I can’t remember what). There was traffic in the area as well I was trying to avoid and that was so my mind as well. A few seconds go by and my CFII says “look at your attitude indicator”. I’m way way nose up, and about 60-65kts vs normal climb out speed of 75-85. I have a 182 so still a decent way from a stall. But that incident become etched my brain - closest I’ve come to a power on stall. Distracted by 20 things to do and didn’t keep my scan.

We learn power on stalls. But we don’t learn how easy it is to lose track of attitude indicator or KIAS when you get distracted by other tasks. If my distraction happened in a cirrus rather than a 182 Id have stalled.

There are so many things that can happen in an airplane that are beyond the scope of the ACS. On my check ride (and in every lesson) I know a power on stall is coming, I need to recover. But what if I don’t know it’s coming? I need to develop the skills to look for it when it’s most likely.

Not saying anything about this pilot. But being a safe pilot doesn’t end with your initial training. So many things are learned from experience, continued practicing, talking to people who have gone through other experiences etc.

I’ve practiced go around with 75% power more recently after watching a Scott Purdue video on it and it made a lot of sense to me. Less hard pitch up, lower risk of stall, easier control. I don’t know if that would work in a high DA airport like this one. Something for me to now try in a safe manner and add another tool to my skill set.
 
wellknow said:
Not my experience. Why did they add a chute to get spin certified if the stall characteristics are so benign.
Click to expand...
I’m trying to find stall recovery requirements for production aircraft. Seem to remember the FAA requires stall recovery in so many turns like maybe one? Maybe one and a half? All I find is How to do stalls.
 
My dude, that’s just a story about how you got task saturated - has nothing to with the handling characteristics of the plane.

It stalls, recovers and turns like a normal low wing plane. Plenty of buffet as a warning.
 
bonefishpete said:
I’m trying to find stall recovery requirements for production aircraft. Seem to remember the FAA requires stall recovery in so many turns like maybe one? Maybe one and a half? All I find is How to do stalls.
Click to expand...
For a production aircraft, it has to be recoverable from a stall/spin in one rotation. CFR23.221
 
I hadn't heard of him before. Sounds like he had a great talent for writing. From Wiki here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_James

His singles for other artists in the early 2000s included the number-one hits "Who I Am" by Jessica Andrews and "Blessed" by McBride.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_James#cite_note-ascap-11"><span>[</span>11<span>]</span></a> He continued to write for other artists, with two more of his songs topping the charts: "When the Sun Goes Down" by Chesney and Uncle Kracker, and "Jesus, Take the Wheel" by Carrie Underwood, in 2004 and 2006 respectively. "Jesus, Take the Wheel" also won a Grammy Award for Best Female Country Vocal Performance and Best Country Song, the latter of which was awarded to James and the song's other two songwriters.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_James#cite_note-12"><span>[</span>12<span>]</span></a> Rodney Atkins' "It's America", Chesney's "Out Last Night" and Carrie Underwood's "Cowboy Casanova", all co-written by James, also topped the country charts in 2009. In 2010, James charted number one with Jason Aldean's "The Truth" and Chris Young's "The Man I Want to Be". ASCAP named James as their country songwriter of the year in 2006<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_James#cite_note-13"><span>[</span>13<span>]</span></a> and again in 2010.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_James#cite_note-14"><span>[</span>14<span>]</span></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_James#cite_note-songwriter-15"><span>[</span>15<span>]</span></a> Non-country artists who have recorded his works include Kelly Clarkson, the Backstreet Boys, Bon Jovi, and Paulina Rubio. James also co-wrote American Idol season 10 winner Scotty McCreery's debut single "I Love You This Big".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_James#cite_note-songwriter-15"><span>[</span>15<span>]</span></a>

In 2008, James began working as a record producer with his production credits including Gracin's We Weren't Crazy, Kristy Lee Cook's Why Wait,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_James#cite_note-16"><span>[</span>16<span>]</span></a> a re-release of Taylor Swift's self-titled debut album, Jessica Simpson's Do You Know, and Kip Moore's Up All Night.
 
wellknow said:
Why did they add a chute to get spin certified if the stall characteristics are so benign.
Click to expand...
You'll find the CAPS was part of the original design and when it was certification time the FAA authorized an ELOS as mentioned above for the spin recovery requirement. For reference, the the JAA/EASA didnt allow an equivelent method and required the full spin recovery testing which it passed. But as I recall, the AFM remained the same and requires CAPS activation in the event of a spin. There were a number of documents released on the subject by the EASA.

bonefishpete said:
I’m trying to find stall recovery requirements for production aircraft.
Click to expand...
As mentioned, it was Part 23.221 but after the Part 23 rewrite in 2017 that rule was deleted and the requirement moved into one of the Advisory Circular consensous standards.
 
It's just in the last few years that "envelope protection" has been added to aircraft. Modern aircraft should be unstallable. Period.
Some will complain (as they did about nose wheels and parachutes) but nobody would want the ABS to be removed from their car. Or the backup camera. Or other safety stuff.
We have the technology; let's use it.
 
Can you feel the mush in a cirrus fly by wire set up as well as you can in a rigged airplane ?
 
midlifeflyer said:
Firstly, it was about spin recovery, not stall characteristics. Two different requirements. People to get their private and commercial in a Cirrus, after all. Stall recovery demonstrations are a PTS/ACS requirement.

They didn’t “get spin certified.” The requirement was waived, the FAA accepting the ELOS provided by the wing and chute (mainly the chute).

I’ve never been interested enough to research it extensively. I’ve heard various accounts of the reason ranging from “they couldn’t” to “they didn’t want to because they felt they had something better and more modern to offer” all the way to, “they were spun in testing for EASA and recover normally.” I’ve tried to verify none of them.

So… since it was different than mine, what was your experience with Cirrus slow flight and stalls? Big wing drop? Sudden huge break with no warning? I don’t have a huge amount of time in them - a bit under 40 hours - but I really found it quite similar to the Diamonds at the performance edges.
Click to expand...
I always heard the feel springs on the control stick caused less sensitivity to slow flight characteristics.
 
bonefishpete said:
I’m trying to find stall recovery requirements for production aircraft. Seem to remember the FAA requires stall recovery in so many turns like maybe one? Maybe one and a half? All I find is How to do stalls.
Click to expand...
I think you mean spin recovery. Yes, it's 1.
 
Tokirbymd said:
I always heard the feel springs on the control stick caused less sensitivity to slow flight characteristics.
Click to expand...
I have done slow flight in 30 or so different make/models of singles. Some are more sensitive, some are less. Some more reactive to small movements; some require large control pressures. No way I can think back and start comparing them; I just do what's needed to maintain heading and altitude. Besides, in the slow flight regimen, it's much more about rudder than aileron. If you are using a lot of aileron, I think you're making it more difficult than it is. (I'm a big slow flight fan.)
 
It’s a side stick controller that’s fairly heavily sprung to neutral. Scary on the ground, flies really nice in the air… I can imagine it would have quite different tactile feedback from more conventional light civil controls.

It just seems to me the high performance wing and heavier wing loading is gonna allow the progression into a stall to be faster than many more common light civil planes. That simply means you really need some specific training to acclimate to it.

Still don’t know if any of this discussion is pertinent here.
 
Kitch said:
I don't know what the correct terminology is, but having sat in one listening to the salesman yap I know it's a different set up.
Click to expand...
Early models used to have a control spring that took away some of the feel of the airplane. Owners are now able to removed it.

I've done all the commercial maneuvers in an SR22 including power on, power off, and accelerated stall. It stalls just like a normal airplane, I would not be afraid to stall one. They have a underserved bad reputation but that always seem to be the case with the aircraft people wish they could have... it used to be the Bonanza crowd but we no longer hear about how dangerous/Dr. Killers they are.
 
Bell206 said:
You'll find the CAPS was part of the original design and when it was certification time the FAA authorized an ELOS as mentioned above for the spin recovery requirement. For reference, the the JAA/EASA didnt allow an equivelent method and required the full spin recovery testing which it passed. But as I recall, the AFM remained the same and requires CAPS activation in the event of a spin. There were a number of documents released on the subject by the EASA.
Click to expand...
Do you have a reference? I've come across EASA documents where the ELOS is being considered, but I haven't see the final product.
 
wellknow said:
they don’t have any rudder authority.
Click to expand...
wellknow said:
Not my experience.
Click to expand...

Same question as before. Please describe your experience that leads you to these conclusions. I'm not asking for hours (unless, I guess, it was a one-shot deal or several hundred hours), but, since your experience is exactly opposite mine and several others, what happened when you tried these maneuvers in flight?
 
not that much time in one. not that intense. just my experience. great plane for longer cross countries where u set the auto pilot. not my favorite flying airplane.
 
Kitch said:
I don't know what the correct terminology is, but having sat in one listening to the salesman yap I know it's a different set up.
Click to expand...
"Fly by wire" refers to a system in which your movements of the stick or other controller do not directly control the flight control surfaces. To use ailerons as an example, your right movement of the stick tells a computer what you want done and the computer sends signals to the actuator to move the surface. The SR series is conventional - stick movement controls a combination of pushrods and calbes.

1758386761607.png
What's different is that its a sidestick rather than a yoke or center stick. And, if all you have ever flown is a Cessna or Piper, the "throw" to full deflection is much much smaller, and the rod/cable setup much tighter.
 
wellknow said:
not that much time in one. not that intense. just my experience. great plane for longer cross countries where u set the auto pilot. not my favorite flying airplane.
Click to expand...
So when you fly it like a 172 or an Archer, it only flies well in certain regimes?
 
wellknow said:
not that much time in one. not that intense. just my experience. great plane for longer cross countries where u set the auto pilot. not my favorite flying airplane.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'm not sure what you mean by "intense," but I guess I'll rely on my own experience and those of others who have flown them, and have also performed stalls and slow flight with no problem.

Personally, I think they fly great. I'm a renter/club member, so no real horse in the race, but the line would be one of my two top choices if I were looking at a purchase.
 
midlifeflyer said:
What's different is that its a sidestick rather than a yoke or center stick. And, if all you have ever flown is a Cessna or Piper, the "throw" to full deflection is much much smaller, and the rod/cable setup much tighter.
Click to expand...
In my experience (~50 hours in an SR22T) it's not the fact that it's a side stick rather than a yoke or center stick. I have >3000 hours in my DA40 with center stick... and the location of the stick plays no role in my opinions of the two aircraft. What bothers me on the SR22 is the "spring loaded" feel of the Cirrus stick... rather than the "direct" feel of the DA40. I love both aircraft... but it seems to me that the Cirrus is a "passenger's aircraft" and the Diamond a "pilot's aircraft"... exactly because of this marked difference in "feel" of the stick.

I have no way of knowing if the "spring loaded" feel of the Cirrus plays any role in this or any other Cirrus accidents. I do know that these days the fatal accident rates for the SRxx, DA40, C172, C182, etc. are all about the same.
 
wayneda40 said:
In my experience (~50 hours in an SR22T) it's not the fact that it's a side stick rather than a yoke or center stick. I have >3000 hours in my DA40 with center stick... and the location of the stick plays no role in my opinions of the two aircraft. What bothers me on the SR22 is the "spring loaded" feel of the Cirrus stick... rather than the "direct" feel of the DA40. I love both aircraft... but it seems to me that the Cirrus is a "passenger's aircraft" and the Diamond a "pilot's aircraft"... exactly because of this marked difference in "feel" of the stick.

I have no way of knowing if the "spring loaded" feel of the Cirrus plays any role in this or any other Cirrus accidents. I do know that these days the fatal accident rates for the SRxx, DA40, C172, C182, etc. are all about the same.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's about the feel, not the location.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Do you have a reference?
Click to expand...
What specific reference? Once the JAA/EASA issued the CS-23 Special Condition on Spins for the SR20 series, they also initiated a report on addressing the spin resistant aspect which is linked below. However, since the EASA also rewrote their CS-23, the prescriptive CS-23.221 no longer exists and is now determined via a consensus standard like the FAA Part 23.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/EASA_REP_RESEA_2008_3.pdf
 
Bell206 said:
What specific reference? Once the JAA/EASA issued the CS-23 Special Condition on Spins for the SR20 series, they also initiated a report on addressing the spin resistant aspect which is linked below. However, since the EASA also rewrote their CS-23, the prescriptive CS-23.221 no longer exists and is now determined via a consensus standard like the FAA Part 23.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/EASA_REP_RESEA_2008_3.pdf
Click to expand...
The one where they ultimately said no to Cirrus unless they did the spin test.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The one where they ultimately said no to Cirrus unless they did the spin test.
Click to expand...
The closest reference I can get you to the Certification Review Item (CRI) B-2, Spins, listed in the EASA SR-20 TCDS is the final draft of the JAA Special Condition on the topic that states the aircraft must comply with the intent of JAR 23.221. The Special Condition is the regulatory side that enforces the CRI and is similar to the FAA Part 21.17 Special Conditions process.

Special Condition Draft:

1758402422204.png
TCDS:
1758402464658.png
 
I do think we are quick to conclude "high performance airplane+inexperienced" pilot anytime a Cirrus has an incident. It's a bit of a discriminative stimulus. If you get cut off by a woman driver, you tend to think women are bad drivers, get cut off by a guy, he's just an a-hole. We see a Cirrus crash and immediately jump to stall spin and no stick and rudder skills. Oh, and parachute makes them take stupid risks. There are inexperienced Cirrus pilots and folks that stall/spin them, but not sure it's at a greater rate than any other airframe.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Agreed. It's about the feel, not the location.
Click to expand...
I have gotten used to it, but I hand fly often. I’m not a fan of the trim, but I now prefer the cirrus controls over having the yoke block the panel or hitting something in the passenger’s lap (like a purse or other carry on).

It really opens up the cockpit.

I understand I don’t hold the majority opinion. I’m not even claiming I’m correct.
 
Bell206 said:
The closest reference I can get you to the Certification Review Item (CRI) B-2, Spins, listed in the EASA SR-20 TCDS is the final draft of the JAA Special Condition on the topic that states the aircraft must comply with the intent of JAR 23.221. The Special Condition is the regulatory side that enforces the CRI and is similar to the FAA Part 21.17 Special Conditions process.

Special Condition Draft:

View attachment 145320
TCDS:
View attachment 145321
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Cirrus seems to have a lot of low level maneuvering accidents where stick and rudder skills are a factor.
Click to expand...
From my (limited) experience, if you don't watch the airspeed at low power states it will decay very fast.
Tools said:
Fast means a thin wing. Fairly unforgiving of too slow.
Click to expand...
Exactly, you get slow and the thing will quit flying on you in a hurry.

Kitch said:
Can you feel the mush in a cirrus fly by wire set up as well as you can in a rigged airplane ?
Click to expand...
Besides the lack of fly by wire (which was already explained), the Cirrus doesn't mush like a 172, it will drop quite suddenly by comparison.
Look up "Cirrus stall strips" to see what they are, how they work and why they're being used.
 
Closest thing I can compare is how a Baron stalls. There is no real stall buffet. The bottom just "falls out".
 
Bell206 said:
The closest reference I can get you to the Certification Review Item (CRI) B-2, Spins, listed in the EASA SR-20 TCDS is the final draft of the JAA Special Condition on the topic that states the aircraft must comply with the intent of JAR 23.221. The Special Condition is the regulatory side that enforces the CRI and is similar to the FAA Part 21.17 Special Conditions process.

Special Condition Draft:

View attachment 145320
TCDS:
View attachment 145321
Click to expand...
Small follow-up. Your snapshot of the January 2004 draft led me to this March 2004 document. Beginning on page 3, it discusses the results of the stall and spin testing done to satisfy the EASA special condition. It's not really complete (the Appendices are missing), but it does tell us that the SR20 was tested with over 60 spin entries and the results indicated:

Stalls:
The SR20 meets or exceeds the ELOS requirements in all required configurations. See SR20 TIR for detail on stall results in Appendix 2. The Airplane retains roll control throughout the stall. The airplane can be rolled from 15 degrees of bank in one direction to 15 degrees of bank in the other direction with the stick full back with typical pilot skill.

Spins:
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.

IOW, conventional in all respects.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Altitude loss from spin entry to recovery ranged from 1,200 – 1,800 feet.
Click to expand...

I lose 1000 feet on a one turn spin in my Super D, but that is with a competition recovery, which involves pushing forward to a full vertical dive and adding full power. Maybe I'll try a regular recovery today and see what the loss is for comparison.

Definitely would not want to spin a Cirrus at or below pattern alt ... which is where they happen. And since minimum CAPS altitude in a spin is 920 feet, that does provide a window where you are screwed.

I assume they are hard to spin, but a mushy or accelerated stall down low is still gonna kill you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top