What's wrong with Cirrus Pilots?

[dell30rb]

I think dick takes issue with the fact that the plane was not spun, and perhaps some pilots are stupid enough to believe that the chute will save them should they find themselves in a base-final spin. The cirrus instructors probably don't teach much about spins and just ensure the students know that if they ever find themselves in a spin, to pull the chute.

Now, even at 7-800agl, if you stall and the wing drops, there is a period of time where you can stomp the rudder, stop the plane from ever entering a spin and recover. You're not finished if you stall from a skidding turn and the plane starts to spin. The point of no return varies based on altitude, and a bunch of other factors, but i'd guess you can spin as much as a 1/4 turn or so and have altitude to recover.

 

[Skylane81E]

I'm just reading this wondering about the chute. Can it be released once the spin is recovered so the plane can fly again or does the plane have to go all the way to the ground with the chute?

No, such a mechanism would open the possibility of falling from the chute when you don't need too.

However let's also consider where stall spin accidents happen.

Close to the ground. Too low to recover by conventional means. The BRS might work, but it was never tested at low altitudes and IIRC 1500 is the minimum recommended altitude.

 

[poadeleted20]

Maybe there's marketing value???

They've already sold 4000 of them the way they are. I don't think full Normal category spin testing would cause the market to buy significantly more.

 

[Skylane81E]

Once you pull, you dispose

Although Cirrus has a handful that they've reconditioned and recertified (and sold), in spite of them thinking they would not be able to.

Yep, a CAPs depoyment is no longer death to the airframe.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm just reading this wondering about the chute. Can it be released once the spin is recovered so the plane can fly again

No.

or does the plane have to go all the way to the ground with the chute?

Yes. And then it has to go back to the factory for reconstruction before it files again.

 

[Skylane81E]

I think dick takes issue with the fact that the plane was not spun, and perhaps some pilots are stupid enough to believe that the chute will save them should they find themselves in a base-final spin. The cirrus instructors probably don't teach much about spins and just ensure the students know that if they ever find themselves in a spin, to pull the chute.

Now, even at 7-800agl, if you stall and the wing drops, there is a period of time where you can stomp the rudder, stop the plane from ever entering a spin and recover. You're not finished if you stall from a skidding turn and the plane starts to spin. The point of no return varies based on altitude, and a bunch of other factors, but i'd guess you can spin as much as a 1/4 turn or so and have altitude to recover.

beg to differ:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAwET3Q9Og4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[poadeleted20]

I think dick takes issue with the fact that the plane was not spun, and perhaps some pilots are stupid enough to believe that the chute will save them should they find themselves in a base-final spin.

I've not seen any significant number of base-final stall/spin accidents with Cirri -- not any, to my recollection. Given the recommended minimum altitude for chute deployment in the book of 2000 AGL, it would not seem to be reason for pilots to do stupid things in the traffic pattern.

The cirrus instructors probably don't teach much about spins and just ensure the students know that if they ever find themselves in a spin, to pull the chute.

That's pretty much what the CSIP tells them to teach.

Now, even at 7-800agl, if you stall and the wing drops, there is a period of time where you can stomp the rudder, stop the plane from ever entering a spin and recover. You're not finished if you stall from a skidding turn and the plane starts to spin.

Agreed.

The point of no return varies based on altitude, and a bunch of other factors, but i'd guess you can spin as much as a 1/4 turn or so and have altitude to recover.

That's not a guess I'd care to make. I'm from the Groucho Marx school of flying on this -- "If it hurts when you to this, don't do this." Keep the ball in the center and your angle of attack under control, and you won't have to worry about how much altitude you'd lose recovering from a spin.

 

[Jaybird180]

That's not a guess I'd care to make. I'm from the Groucho Marx school of flying on this -- "If it hurts when you to this, don't do this." Keep the ball in the center and your angle of attack under control, and you won't have to worry about how much altitude you'd lose recovering from a spin.

But isn't that valuable information for transition training? For example, I am known for not having the most sensitive butt. I have to at the ball to know its position.

When I was preparing for my checkride, I think I just habitually entered right rudder during climbs and other high power manuevers. Otherwise, my feet weren't (and still don't - to my chagrin) fly the plane.

 

[poadeleted20]

But isn't that valuable information for transition training? For example, I am known for not having the most sensitive butt. I have to at the ball to know its position.

Doesn't matter how you keep the ball centered, just that you do. :wink2:

 

[Skylane81E]

I can look it back up if needed but I saw a video of a 20 almost spinning on YouTube today. Went in and came out just like any other plane

 

[Jaybird180]

I can look it back up if needed but I saw a video of a 20 almost spinning on YouTube today. Went in and came out just like any other plane

Find it please.

 

[Jaybird180]

Doesn't matter how you keep the ball centered, just that you do. :wink2:

All due respect, this type of comment (to a person like myself) is what inculcates fear of the unknown. Respectfully, the comments should also clearly state to what tolerance the ball should be centered, otherwise I may (for fear of the slightest piloting error) choose to stay away from BrandX due to newbie (poorly trained) rudder reflexes.

 

[TMetzinger]

I'm not aware of the accident record in Cirrii having an unusual number of stall-spin accidents (if any, as Ron said). The stuff that seems to kill people in that airplane are
VFR into IMC
CFIT
Botched Landings

Sort of the same stuff that happens in other airplanes that comes down to pilot error.

Now, it's quite possible to me that the gap between pilot performance and airplane performance is larger in the Cirrus fleet, because I think pilots are getting into those airplanes with comparatively less experience than they get into Mooneys and Bonanzas and the Cessna 400. The other airplanes are typically not "first planes", whereas Cirrus specifically marketed to first-time buyers.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the Cirrus, except that it allows your ego to write a check your skills may not be able to cover, and some of the marketing aspects may encourage that a bit.

 

[Skylane81E]

Find it please.

Your wish is my command:wink2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk8hZ6ug-tI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[PPC1052]

I see so many people complaining about other bad pilots, both here, and on in the responses to the article. I am a low time pilot, and I know I have made stupid mistakes commenserate with my level of experience. But we all go through that to get to be good, experienced pilots. How does one know if they are the bad pilot themselves? It sort of like the great line from the movie, My Blue Heaven, “Of course you have a sense of humor. Everyone thinks they do, even people who don’t.”

 

[Henning]

"Normally a single-engine airplane has to be spun as part of the certification process. The Cirrus wasn’t. The FAA waived this requirement and accepted the airframe parachute as an alternate means of compliance. I kid you not, the spin recovery in a Cirrus is based on deploying the chute. That is the only way a pilot can recover from a spin in a Cirrus."

Glad I read this, never riding in a Cirrus with any pilot's that like doing (sloppy) stalls every flight.

That is incorrect, it was spun for EASA cert.

 

[Henning]

The Cirrus wing is a high performance, unforgiving wing design that flies very well within it's flight envelope. Add the false sense of security and invincibility of a parachute and you have average pilots doing and trying extrodinary things. A bad combination IMHO if the pilots exceed their abilities.

We had a Cirrus owner try and land a on a 2,500' grass strip, float 3/4 of the way then decide to go around and put it in the trees at the other end. Certainly, not the plane's fault.

How much Cirrus time you have? I don't see the plane that way at all, but I never got any training in one. I found the plane to be fully under control even in the barely stalled condition it would achieve due to the dual platform wing with inside stalling first. I was not able to make the plane spin from a power off stall, it wouldn't do it, it required an accelerated stall and kick with full deflections on both; recovered as normal within 2 turns and within 90 degrees of initiation. The rotation was a little slow and flat in comparison to most spins I've done, but recovery was unquestionable.

I didn't fly it for even 2 hrs but a concerned client/ SR-22GTx IIRC who became spooked after hearing stories asked me if I thought the plane was safe, I said there was only one way to find out if he didn't mind risking a chute pull. He was good with it and I checked it out. Personally I don't think there is an aerodynamically safer GA plane built.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

I see so many people complaining about other bad pilots, both here, and on in the responses to the article. I am a low time pilot, and I know I have made stupid mistakes commenserate with my level of experience. But we all go through that to get to be good, experienced pilots. How does one know if they are the bad pilot themselves? It sort of like the great line from the movie, My Blue Heaven, “Of course you have a sense of humor. Everyone thinks they do, even people who don’t.”

IMHO there is a difference between the mistakes one makes while learning, which are those of inexperience, and mistakes made by just grossly overextending the capabilities of your aircraft or your skill through poor judgement. Your question about how one knows if they are a bad pilot is a great one. I think it is a matter of situational awareness and good judgement. I would say if you are constantly squeaking through tight circumstances that seem to suddenly appear without warning then your judgement is questionable. Am I a good pilot? Perhaps. But I can say with certainty that I am a safe pilot. I can be happy to leave the showy flying to the Blue Angels......and RV pilots.

 

[Jaybird180]

I'm not aware of the accident record in Cirrii having an unusual number of stall-spin accidents (if any, as Ron said).

Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nm_hoHhbFo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[Jaybird180]

How much Cirrus time you have? I don't see the plane that way at all, but I never got any training in one. I found the plane to be fully under control even in the barely stalled condition it would achieve due to the dual platform wing with inside stalling first. I was not able to make the plane spin from a power off stall, it wouldn't do it, it required an accelerated stall and kick with full deflections on both; recovered as normal within 2 turns and within 90 degrees of initiation. The rotation was a little slow and flat in comparison to most spins I've done, but recovery was unquestionable.

I didn't fly it for even 2 hrs but a concerned client/ SR-22GTx IIRC who became spooked after hearing stories asked me if I thought the plane was safe, I said there was only one way to find out if he didn't mind risking a chute pull. He was good with it and I checked it out. Personally I don't think there is an aerodynamically safer GA plane built.

Alright folks that's it! Let's sticky this post for any Cirrus accident threads. The Great Henning has spoken

 

[TMetzinger]

I don't disagree with Henning much. You gotta work HARD to crash a Cirrus. The fact that some pilots are up to the challenge says more about the pilots than it does about the airplane.

Thanks for that video, though. Watching it I ran out of fingers each time I counted myself having a WTF moment trying to figure out what the pilot though he was doing.

 

[Jaybird180]

Your wish is my command:wink2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk8hZ6ug-tI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Thanks. I'd seen that but wasn't reaaaaaly aware of what I was witnessing. Thank for the final puzzle piece.

 

[gprellwitz]

I'm not aware of the accident record in Cirrii having an unusual number of stall-spin accidents (if any, as Ron said). The stuff that seems to kill people in that airplane are
VFR into IMC
CFIT
Botched Landings

Sort of the same stuff that happens in other airplanes that comes down to pilot error.

Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nm_hoHhbFo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Does one example constitute an unusual number? Congratulations, you've found an example of a Cirrus stall spin accident. 60 degrees of bank, less than 300' AGL. What it looks like you've found is an example of a poor pilotage accident that happened to be in a Cirrus. (I bolded some of the quote that you neglected to include in your response.)

 

[Skylane81E]

Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nm_hoHhbFo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Ok, that's one but being a cirrus didn't matter overmuch. It ain't spin proof

 

[Henning]

I think dick takes issue with the fact that the plane was not spun, and perhaps some pilots are stupid enough to believe that the chute will save them should they find themselves in a base-final spin. The cirrus instructors probably don't teach much about spins and just ensure the students know that if they ever find themselves in a spin, to pull the chute.

Now, even at 7-800agl, if you stall and the wing drops, there is a period of time where you can stomp the rudder, stop the plane from ever entering a spin and recover. You're not finished if you stall from a skidding turn and the plane starts to spin. The point of no return varies based on altitude, and a bunch of other factors, but i'd guess you can spin as much as a 1/4 turn or so and have altitude to recover.

Unless you are flying aerobatics in the pattern, the ability to enter a base final spin is a non reality due to the design of the aircraft.

This is why Cirrus leads the market for people who buy the plane as a travel tool not a flying machine. They don't want to learn to fly, they want to learn to get places faster than their Ferrari will get them there so they can make more money in a day. That is why Cirrus is successful.

Everybody else forgot to innovate to keep their product at the forefront of the non pilot business prospect. Cirrus sold them the moon.

 

[poadeleted20]

All due respect, this type of comment (to a person like myself) is what inculcates fear of the unknown. Respectfully, the comments should also clearly state to what tolerance the ball should be centered, otherwise I may (for fear of the slightest piloting error) choose to stay away from BrandX due to newbie (poorly trained) rudder reflexes.

You're overthinking this. Just relax and keep the nose pointed in the same direction you're flying, and all will be well.

 

[Henning]

Alright folks that's it! Let's sticky this post for any Cirrus accident threads. The Great Henning has spoken

Please, analyze the aerodynamic designs of all the current GA planes and find a safer design, seriously.

 

[Jaybird180]

Does one example constitute an unusual number? Congratulations, you've found an example of a Cirrus stall spin accident. 60 degrees of bank, less than 300' AGL. What it looks like you've found is an example of a poor pilotage accident that happened to be in a Cirrus. (I bolded some of the quote that you neglected to include in your response.)

Agreed that it is statistically insignificant, but don't shoot the messenger. I also happen to like the Cirrus?

 

[Jaybird180]

You're overthinking this. Just relax and keep the nose pointed in the same direction you're flying, and all will be well.

Substitute "I" for "a person", same point applies to this and many other posts. Just asking for a little mindfulness, that's all. And not directed exclusively to you either.

Life goes on.

 

[Jaybird180]

Please, analyze the aerodynamic designs of all the current GA planes and find a safer design, seriously.

Not taking that challenge, but you're welcome to start a new thread, I'll be sure and watch from the sidelines.:wink2:

 

[zaitcev]

Please, analyze the aerodynamic designs of all the current GA planes and find a safer design, seriously.

Can't wait to see what the stall speed of Kestrel is. Since it's a retract and a turboprop (expensive by design), they might as well install huge flaps on the thing.

 

[denverpilot]

Wasn't the most recent Cirrus crash the guy who turned too hard base-to-final after the controller asked him to, instead of saying "unable" or keeping the speed up?

(I keep seeing the comment that there haven't been *any* base-to-final accidents, and that's actually the most recent accident I can remember in a Cirrus.)

 

[Henning]

Wait till I build a variable length extruded airfoil conjoined wing with a roller foot, sheet-able soft sail between for 10 kt landings and 180kt cruise able to lengthen it's wings with increase in altitude.

 

[Wingsofglass]

Please, analyze the aerodynamic designs of all the current GA planes and find a safer design, seriously.

A Diamond DA40. Similar performance to an SR20. Lower stall speed. More forgiving wing. Also (not related to aerodynamics), safer fuel tanks, landing gear with a wider stance and less bounce, airbags and arguably a more reliable engine with a Lyc IO360. The DA40's fatal rate puts it up there for the title of safest single engine piston available.

 

[Skylane81E]

A Diamond DA40. Similar performance to an SR20. Lower stall speed. More forgiving wing. Also (not related to aerodynamics), safer fuel tanks, landing gear with a wider stance and less bounce, airbags and arguably a more reliable engine with a Lyc IO360. The DA40's fatal rate puts it up there for the title of safest single engine piston available.

Also a smaller plane. However I'd buy the diamond first because of the folding rear seat. To me the lack of removable or flat folding rear seats on the cirrus is an issue. Less so for the target customer who intends to haul people and the only need to fold the seat is for skis or golf clubs that don't mind the big step.

 

[weilke]

Wasn't the most recent Cirrus crash the guy who turned too hard base-to-final after the controller asked him to, instead of saying "unable" or keeping the speed up?

(I keep seeing the comment that there haven't been *any* base-to-final accidents, and that's actually the most recent accident I can remember in a Cirrus.)

There have been a couple of base to final spins. Went through the records at one point. I doubt there is an aircraft type out there that doesn't have those.

 

[denverpilot]

There have been a couple of base to final spins. Went through the records at one point. I doubt there is an aircraft type out there that doesn't have those.

Agreed. It was just the "never say never" part that was bugging me.

 

[Henning]

A Diamond DA40. Similar performance to an SR20. Lower stall speed. More forgiving wing. Also (not related to aerodynamics), safer fuel tanks, landing gear with a wider stance and less bounce, airbags and arguably a more reliable engine with a Lyc IO360. The DA40's fatal rate puts it up there for the title of safest single engine piston available.

Ok, fuel tank wins, wing does not. The Cirrus wing has it. I have flown the DA-40 a good bit and it is NOT more forgiving than the Cirrus wing and will spin readily with standard spin inputs.

 

[TMetzinger]

A Diamond DA40. Similar performance to an SR20. Lower stall speed. More forgiving wing. Also (not related to aerodynamics), safer fuel tanks, landing gear with a wider stance and less bounce, airbags and arguably a more reliable engine with a Lyc IO360. The DA40's fatal rate puts it up there for the title of safest single engine piston available.

Not the same class. - significantly slower. Great plane, one of my favorites, but not freally a competitor to the SR-22 (or even the SR-20)

 

[timwinters]

Cirrus bashing.

The latest version of the old fork tailed doctor killer B.S. Now of course the V-tail has become a sweet flying classic operated by aviation connoisseurs and traditionally skilled pilots.

Before it was Cirrus it was doctor-killing Bonazas, etc...

I agree completely that Cirrus is today's version of the 70's and 80's "forked tail doctor killer." I disagree however that the reputation is B.S.

Simply put, the most expensive plane of any era will be bought by the richest sector of pilots and that's typically doctors and lawyers and business owners. Successful people typically work long hours, hence the reason they're successful, and many, if not most, have inadequate spare time to devote to pilot proficiency.

Pairing up a slick, fast, and possibly unforgiving, airplane with a marginally proficient pilot is never a good combination. And you can double down if that pilot has "god syndrome".

My take; it's not the plane, it's the pilot. Yes, the Bo was a doctor killer...now the Cirrus is. The movie's being replayed, just with different actors.

And yes, the Bo is now "a sweet flying classic operated by aviation connoisseurs" because the common man can now afford to buy one; someone who has (and makes) the time to take aviation seriously.