[blandess]

Hello All,
I was just out on the ramp running a plane for some EGT problems and heard one of our customers SR22 coming roaring down the runway...she lifted off a couple hundred feet after the 1000' markers...meanwhile... N410RB was taxiing to the run-up and a couple minutes went by and he powered up and was off the ground about halfway between the numbers and the same markers. I smiled.

SR22: IO-550-N 310hp with wide chord composite 3 bladed Hartzell
RV10: BA 2 blade Hartzell and 260hp IO-540(assumption..)

HOORAH RV's!

 

[rvbuilder2002]

I know of at least one SR22 owner that has sold his airplane and bought a nicely built example of an RV-10. His reason...higher performance with lower initial purchase cost and lower cost to own (maint, etc.)

 

[Geico266]

There is an interesting thread on another web site where a Cirrus driver did a touch & go, and gave it full power after he touched the mains down. The plane pitched up (it was trimmed for landing) and he was (allegedly) unable to hold the nose down with just one hand while he attempted to get it trimmed for take off. The resulting crash was fatal. The Cirrus has a left hand only stick.

I have had to do a go around in my -10 and the force needed to hold the nose down while not over powering, it was certaining welcome to be able to use two hands.

The other statistic I find interesting in the Cirrus -v- RV-10 is the stall speed. It's nice to have things happening just a little slower on final, and in the case of an off field landing the survivability at the lower speed has to be beneficial.

JMHO

 

[lancef53]

The SR-22's I have been in had a Go around position on the power lever--maybe it wasn't used in that case?

The 22's are sure some nice planes, and have a ton of shoulder room. How do the 10's compare in that regard? I have never had a chance to get in one.

Cool discussion!!

http://cirrusaircraft.com/sr22/gallery.aspx

The go around button is the 7th picture in the slide show, scroll to the first cockpit picture and you can see it. I can't get the link to go directly to it--I am just a dumb farmer, not so good on the 'puter.

 

[flyeyes]

The SR-22's I have been in had a Go around position on the power lever--maybe it wasn't used in that case?


Cool discussion!!

I've got several hundred hours in SR22s and haven't seen that. Maybe a button for the flight director to indicate climb attitude?

I haven't flown a -10, so can't compare directly, but a Cirrus is easily controllable in a go-around. Like most "heavy" singles the stick forces are a good bit higher than the smaller RVs.

The Cirrus handling is very comparable to a Bonanza, and a little lighter/snappier than the bigger Pipers.

 

[lancef53]

Flyeyes, can you look at the link on the cirrus site? I have only ridden in them, or flown from the right, but the pilot made it sound like it actually controlled the power or something.

I don't know how it works, I have never seen it used.

Lance

 

[JumpNurse]

Flyeyes, can you look at the link on the cirrus site? I have only ridden in them, or flown from the right, but the pilot made it sound like it actually controlled the power or something.

I don't know how it works, I have never seen it used.

Lance

Looks like it just cues the flight director. Info at the very bottom of the page:

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/air...perspective.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=

That level feature in the autopilot seems like a potential life saver

 

[Tom Smith]

I bought a new '08 SR-22 which I flew a little over 100 hours. The plane was great but the depreciation and operating costs were almost unbearable. (Not that the Cirrus aircraft are any different in that regards than just about any other new, comparable type I guess.) I sold it, primarily for economic reasons, and now have about 75 hours on my RV-10. I LOVE the operating costs of the RV-10 and find it to be very comparable performance-wise. It's a bit more spartan and the avionics, while quite good, really don't compare to the Avidyne equipment but I comfortably fly it IFR all the time (it has 3 separate GPS systems and 2 independent EFIS units). And one of the things I really enjoy is the ground handling, particularily the extra rudder and elevator control if provides. When you consider the cost factors involved I think it's a no brainer. If money is unlimited I'd buy the Cirrus just like I'd buy a new BMW versus a used Buick or something. Buicks are good though and sure get the job done!

 

[frazitl]

Go around button not new technology

My Century 41 in my first mooney ('81 231) had the same feature. It would pitch up to climb attitude, though the pilot had to manage power and airspeed and dial in the missed way point. It was up to the pilot to ensure one didn't get too slow. Never tried to see what it would do near stall, but a nice feature nonetheless.

 

[jrsites]

That level feature in the autopilot seems like a potential life saver

I'm interested in your thoughts on this. In what types of situations do you envision the "level" button being most effective?

 

[JumpNurse]

I'm interested in your thoughts on this. In what types of situations do you envision the "level" button being most effective?

This is of course from a student pilot with .6 hrs IFR and zero in a Cirrus, so keep that in mind. My thought were for all of the weather related accidents. Both IFR pilots getting in situations beyond their abilities and VFR pilots who, for whatever reason, find themselves in IMC. If they are aware enough to realize they are in trouble, this feature may buy them the time to regain situational awareness rather than spiraling into dirt because of no visual references. I don't think one should become device dependent, but even the most experienced aviator isn't above making an error. The vestibular system is a powerful beast that is hard to say no to even with the best instruments telling the real truth about your flight path.

 

[Ron Lee]

Level button/switch

Interesting. I was under the apparent mistaken perception that the normal reaction to anything non-nominal was to deploy the parachute.

 

[John Clark]

Max speed

Interesting. I was under the apparent mistaken perception that the normal reaction to anything non-nominal was to deploy the parachute.

The max deployment speed for the parachute is 133 KIAS, so there are plenty of scenarios where the 'chute would fail instantly.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

 

[Danny7]

cirrus, cessna (columbia) and anyone else that makes a composite 4 place factory plane will end up with a heavy plane. that will reduce performance. A kit plane can be as spartan as the owner wants it light, he is the only one he has to please.

seems to be a hard comparison to make, the factory built vs kit built AND sheet metal vs composite, at the same time.

 

[roee]

Interesting. I was under the apparent mistaken perception that the normal reaction to anything non-nominal was to deploy the parachute.

I'm pretty sure this comment was tongue in cheek, right? I would think that pulling the chute is an option of last resort, like in an unrecoverable spin, or major structural or control systems failure, or an engine out over terrain that would preclude a survivable landing. The level button sounds like a valuable feature for situations like inadvertent flight into IMC, or spatial disorientation at night, or any other unexpected loss of visual reference. And unlike the chute, it could save your skin and the airplane's.

Disclaimer: I've never flown a Cirrus nor any airplane that has had a BRS chute nor a level button. But they both sounds like good ideas.

 

[flyeyes]

The max deployment speed for the parachute is 133 KIAS, so there are plenty of scenarios where the 'chute would fail instantly.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

Actually just one scenario, the very high speed deployment ;-)

There has been at least one successful deployment at well over Vne. Admittedly the plane was probably light as there was only one on board.

BRS deplyment

The ntsb report is a little vague, but the pilot was a very active member of the Cirrus list and posted a lengthy account of the accident which was chilling. Basically he was near the end of an IFR flight, passed out and awoke to find himself confused and in a high-speed dive. He had difficulty processing the instruments, but the airspeed tape was red. He pitched up and deployed the parachute because he was unsure what was happening and didn't know if he would lose consciousness again. It turns out he had a previously undiagnosed brain tumor.

This accident is also quite interesting. This was a high altitude IMC upset/loss of control resulting in a very rapid descent.

The pilot lost control and became disoriented. He had erroneous airdata because of icing and was attempting to regain control when the ground proximity warning (gps based) in the Garmins activated. He activated the parachute and apparently ground impact occurred within seconds of activation. The pilot was very surprised that he had lost that much altitude in such a short time.

There was one accident (unfortunately no survivors) near Lake Tahoe that also began as icing, high speed descent, and a failed CAPS deployment. Radar data suggested a very high speed descent, with a vertical speed estimated 100+knots over Vne.

 

[[email protected]]

The Truetrak AP will do that ........just turn it on, it flys the current coarse and climb or decent.........has a AS limit that can be set and will not climb at a slower speed. On my list of "other" test I would like to do during phase II is to go out and do some unusual attitudes with my instructor and activate the AP and see if it makes the situation better or worse......

 

[jrsites]

This is of course from a student pilot with .6 hrs IFR and zero in a Cirrus, so keep that in mind. My thought were for all of the weather related accidents. Both IFR pilots getting in situations beyond their abilities and VFR pilots who, for whatever reason, find themselves in IMC. If they are aware enough to realize they are in trouble, this feature may buy them the time to regain situational awareness rather than spiraling into dirt because of no visual references. I don't think one should become device dependent, but even the most experienced aviator isn't above making an error. The vestibular system is a powerful beast that is hard to say no to even with the best instruments telling the real truth about your flight path.

I have zero experience in a Cirrus, either. I do, however, have G1000 experience. I do see how an altitude and heading hold feature could be useful in an inadvertent IMC situation when you're trying to talk on the radio, fly the airplane, navigate, etc.

What I don't quite understand is how a "level" button is any different or does anything better than simply pressing "ALT" and "HDG" on you autopilot controler.

I'm not instrument rated, but even flying just VFR, my standard practice is to set the altitude bug to reflect my assigned or desired altitude, and the heading bug to reflect my assigned or desired heading, whether I have the autopilot engaged or not. That being the case, simply pressing ALT and HDG should have the same effect as pressing the LVL button, no? Yes, it's two button presses instead of one, and it assumes you have your bugs set to your current altitude and heading, but I can't foresee too many situations where the LVL button is going to accomplish something that can't be accomplished by the equipment that was already in the cockpit prior to the advent of the LVL button.

Actually, my guess is that most people flying an airplane in the Cirrus class have the autopilot engaged from 500 ft. AGL after takeoff until final approach. So there again, I can't imagine a situation where the LVL button does anything for you; you're likely to be ON the autopilot already when encountering inadvertent IMC, etc.

All in all, it's an example of Cirrus adding a certain measure of automation to the cockpit. And automation can contribute to increased safety, when used properly. It certainly doesn't make the cockpit LESS safe. But I am having a hard time seeing it as anything more than a gimmick at this point, as I just can't imagine any real world scenario where the LVL button is going to accomplish something you couldn't do with the same old autopilot buttons that existed in the previous Cirrus iteration.

Anyone with more experience in a Cirrus who can add any comments?

 

[jrsites]

Disclaimer: I've never flown a Cirrus nor any airplane that has had a BRS chute nor a level button. But they both sounds like good ideas.

The question of whether a parachute is a good idea or not is somewhat like the question "Have you stopped cheating on your taxes?" A simple yes or no does not sufficiently answer the question.

An airplane with a parachute in it IS incrementally safer than one without a parachute, simply because it has one more option for relatively safe return to earth in the event something "non-nominal" (to borrow Ron's phrase) occurs.

What is interesting to me, though, are the number of people who assume that a parachute in the airplane automatically means that there are now NO bad situations which cannot be gotten out of. This is wrong.

When do the largest majority of accidents happen? In the takeoff and landing phases of flight. The parachute will not save your hide in a departure stall or stall/spin on turn to final. Nor will it keep you from busting minimums and flying into the approach lights. Or from failing to do your density altitude calculations on that hot summer day.

The reality is that the parachute is likely constrained to a very limited "window" of operation (airspeed limits, bank angles, altitudes, etc.). Now, if you were to overlay the types of "non-nominal" events that might occur within that window, my guess is that you're looking at a relatively small number of situations in which the parachute becomes a true difference-maker.

Am I saying the parachute is worthless? No. Again, it doesn't make the airplane LESS safe. Heck, if I had the choice of two airplanes that flew and performed identically, one with a parachute and one without, I'd take the one with the parachute. I'm just saying that I don't believe the parachute is the panacea of safety it appears to be on first blush.

 

[John Clark]

Marketing

The question of whether a parachute is a good idea or not is somewhat like the question "Have you stopped cheating on your taxes?" A simple yes or no does not sufficiently answer the question.

An airplane with a parachute in it IS incrementally safer than one without a parachute, simply because it has one more option for relatively safe return to earth in the event something "non-nominal" (to borrow Ron's phrase) occurs.

What is interesting to me, though, are the number of people who assume that a parachute in the airplane automatically means that there are now NO bad situations which cannot be gotten out of. This is wrong.

When do the largest majority of accidents happen? In the takeoff and landing phases of flight. The parachute will not save your hide in a departure stall or stall/spin on turn to final. Nor will it keep you from busting minimums and flying into the approach lights. Or from failing to do your density altitude calculations on that hot summer day.

The reality is that the parachute is likely constrained to a very limited "window" of operation (airspeed limits, bank angles, altitudes, etc.). Now, if you were to overlay the types of "non-nominal" events that might occur within that window, my guess is that you're looking at a relatively small number of situations in which the parachute becomes a true difference-maker.

Am I saying the parachute is worthless? No. Again, it doesn't make the airplane LESS safe. Heck, if I had the choice of two airplanes that flew and performed identically, one with a parachute and one without, I'd take the one with the parachute. I'm just saying that I don't believe the parachute is the panacea of safety it appears to be on first blush.

I agree completely. The parachute system has its points but it isn't the panacea that Cirrus' marketing department makes it out to be.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

 

[Ron Lee]

I will assert that the parachute allows some pilots to do stupid things then use the parachute to save their darwinian hides.

Two examples: One Cirrus pilot who went over mountainous terrain at night in high wind conditions and another who departed into IMC and apparently lost spatial orientation.

I have no need for a parachute capable aircraft. I prefer to use better judgment and avoid situations that might make one useful. See safety thread reference "nice guy."

 

[rwhittier]

A good way to view the chute

I think you have hit the nail on the head, good post. I have over a thousand hours in Cirrus aircraft, so I am pretty familiar with the chute and its track record. I also am pretty familiar with most chute pulls in an effort to try to learn from them. You are right, it can't help you close to the ground. The POH says it needs a thousand feet to work. That said in testing it always deployed in 400 feet or less once pulled, so the secret to it saving you at lower altitudes is to immediately recognize the need and PULL THE HANDLE NOW. Still, it is a very slim chance in a pattern stall/spin. It is a hard plane to spin with those leading cuffs.

BTW, for FAA certification testing they had to deploy it in spins, inverted and in a number of unusual out of control situations so it isn't limited with the exception of speed and altitude.

We hate all accidents and fatals are terribly depressing to see happen. But the ones that frustrate us the most are the accidents where the chute was viable and would have made a difference but for whatever reason the pilot did not use it. There are more of those than there should be. So far we do not have a problem with people deploying too often or too early, we have the opposite problem.

The chute is not the answer to everything as some marketing types would try to sell. But because of the chute today there are 39 (IIRC) people walking around today that most likely would not be without it. So it works. For me, I think its comforting flying over hostile terrain, at night, etc... But if I have an emergency in the plane I am going to try conventional responses first.

BTW, a bit of trivia. The reason the Cirrus has the chute is one of the founders was involved in a mid air collision quite a few years before the Cirrus hit the drawing boards. He managed to get on the ground safely, but the other pilot did not. It formed his opinion that the price of a screw up should not have to = death. Not if he could make the parachute idea work.

The reality is that the parachute is likely constrained to a very limited "window" of operation (airspeed limits, bank angles, altitudes, etc.). Now, if you were to overlay the types of "non-nominal" events that might occur within that window, my guess is that you're looking at a relatively small number of situations in which the parachute becomes a true difference-maker.

Am I saying the parachute is worthless? No. Again, it doesn't make the airplane LESS safe. Heck, if I had the choice of two airplanes that flew and performed identically, one with a parachute and one without, I'd take the one with the parachute. I'm just saying that I don't believe the parachute is the panacea of safety it appears to be on first blush.

 

[roee]

...What is interesting to me, though, are the number of people who assume that a parachute in the airplane automatically means that there are now NO bad situations which cannot be gotten out of. This is wrong.

I agree completely. As I noted in my previous post, I think the parachute is a useful asset as a last resort in some limited set of situations. It is not a magic bullet, and should also not be used as a crutch for poor pilot technique and/or poor decision making.

Whether the technology is "good" or "bad" can be one of those never-ending debates, like those debates that had surrounded GPS before it gained broader acceptance. Does it offer us useful new capabilities? Clearly, yes. Do some people become overly reliant on it and use it as a crutch for poor technique and poor planning? Unfortunately, also yes. But that doesn't have to be the case. Can it be a valuable asset and enhance safety if used properly by well trained pilots? Yes, and I think that's the bottom line. Like many other promising new technologies, to offer a positive benefit they still have to be coupled with education for proper use.

 

[Lycosaurus]

Spin recovery not demonstrated

BTW, a bit of trivia. The reason the Cirrus has the chute is one of the founders was involved in a mid air collision quite a few years before the Cirrus hit the drawing boards. He managed to get on the ground safely, but the other pilot did not. It formed his opinion that the price of a screw up should not have to = death. Not if he could make the parachute idea work.

I may be wrong, however from what I have read, I believe the parachute is there to meet FAA certification in lieu of demonstrated spin recovery.


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

Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover, according to the test pilots. ​

http://www.cirruspilots.org/blogs/pull_early_pull_often/archive/2008/10/13/spinning-caps.aspx

If in a spin and recovery doesn't work, PULL CAPS!​

Unfortunately, we know several Cirrus fatal accidents involved spins in which the pilots didn't recover and didn't pull CAPS.​

In Meadview, AZ, the NTSB reconstructed the flight path and found the plane spent 45 seconds in a 15-turn spin until ground impact. The CAPS parachute deployed post-impact.​

At Parish, NY, the pilots were at 5,000 feet practicing aggressive maneuvers, entered a flat-spin and impacted the ground. From that altitude, the pilots had at least 30 seconds to act. Yet the CAPS handle was still stowed and the safety pin in place.​

At Maybell, CO, the pilots reported icing at high altitude. Yet the plane crashed after a long descent and the CAPS parachute deployed post-impact with the CAPS handle found in the stowed position.​

And at Indianapolis, IN, the plane descended in a 5-turn spin before the CAPS handle was pulled at 528 feet AGL.​

http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/518694

Cirrus Parachute System (CAPS) ​

The Cirrus SR series (SRV, SR20, and SR22) aircraft are equipped with the Cirrus Aircraft Parachute System (CAPS), a ballistic parachute deployed from the back of the aircraft, in most cases, allows the entire aircraft to descend safely from an emergency. Cirrus is the first manufacturer to receive FAA certification for production aircraft with ballistic parachute systems. With the NASA-developed spin resistant wing, the parachute system was accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration as an equivalent level of safety and complete spin testing was not required by the FAA. ​

The Cirrus pilot's operating handbook states that the parachute system "is designed to bring the aircraft and its occupants to the ground in the event of a life-threatening emergency. The system is intended to save the lives of the occupants but will most likely destroy the aircraft and may, in adverse circumstances, cause serious injury or death to the occupants". As the SR aircraft have not been fully spin-tested, a properly-functioning CAPS system is required for flight on all Cirrus SR aircraft.​

 

[Danny7]

Am I saying the parachute is worthless? No. Again, it doesn't make the airplane LESS safe. Heck, if I had the choice of two airplanes that flew and performed identically, one with a parachute and one without, I'd take the one with the parachute. I'm just saying that I don't believe the parachute is the panacea of safety it appears to be on first blush.

You can't build IDENTICAL airplanes, one with a chute and one without. one will have extra weight, different construction techniques to attach and house the parachute, etc etc. also there will always be the cost, i do not think they are cheap add ons.

the 'chute is one more toothpick that ends up making the cirrus quite a bit heavier than the RV10, and performance is not as strong either.


but other than that the post sounds good.

 

[Vern]

Cirrus Parachute:weak equivalent to an ejection seat

Having flown military aircraft with ejection seats, I always enjoyed that extra bit of comfort knowing that in a bad situation I had still another option, so I probably was more aggressive and probably pressed a little more than I would have had I not had the option of a 'nylon letdown'.

However, in the two instances when an ejection would have been the recommended course of action for me, I chose to stay with my bird. Fortunately, it worked out, but the authorities would have not questioned an ejection.

Many others rode planes to their deaths. Why? One reason is called the 'womb complex.-i.e. Why would I want to leave this comfy, familiar environment for that cold,harsh,unknown environment?

Perhaps this sheds some perspective on the Cirrus pilots situation.

What do you think?

 

[rwhittier]

Not sure why this gets so convoluted...

For whatever reason the chute generates a lot of strong emotion and misunderstandings. It was not my intent to engage in a chute justification because I am not one of those chute-aholics you often see in the Cirrus crowd. The chute should never be thought of as a safety net that can replace good judgement. Unfortunately pilots have been making bad judgement calls in airplanes for a 100 years, with or without a chute.

It is an option - a fairly good one if you need it. An option that while it does have some good results it does rob 80 lbs useful from the airplane. In 3400 lbs that is 2.4% of the airframes weight at gross and depending on equipment is is perhaps 7 or 8% of useful load, so it is a weight penalty. I still have almost 1200 lbs useful despite it. I didn't buy the Cirrus because it had a chute. I still fly lots of other types that don't have it. That said I do like to dispel incorrect rumors and hearsay when I can.

Philip Greenspun is not correct in his review of the Cirrus. In fact he has written a lot about the Cirrus aircraft that I do not agree with - IMO. He has a lot to say about it, I do not want to get into a tit for tat response on his review. If anyone wants to fly in mine, I will be glad to host your own non objective view.

One thing most people don't consider is logic in all this. Why would anyone develop a chute to avoid spin testing? It cost 10's of millions of dollars and delayed certification by a considerable amount of time. If it had been a marketing option they would have certified it without the chute and added it later. They nearly bankrupted the company by the delays of certifying the chute. It would have been easier to modify the rudder or something aerodynamic to fix the spin certification rather than develop a chute. The chute idea for safety preceded the decision to forgo spin testing, not the other way around. It would have been crazy to develop a chute to avoid spin testing as the cost of the chute development totally dwarfed the cost of any spin recovery mods that may have been required.

So you understand my credentials to say that, I put money down on a plane in April 1997. I took delivery of mine in May of 2001. I have attended a lot of Cirrus presentations and talked to a number of Cirrus executives, its founders and engineers over the 12 years I have been associated with them. I like the plane, it is an awesome cross country IFR airplane. But then I like RV's too.

Cirrus decided to forgo spin testing because the chute was a proven to be equivalent level of safety (ie - you have an option in a spin other than hit the ground). The FAA agreed that the plane had an acceptable equivalent to spin recovery in the chute. They have spun the plane and recovered it. Finally I personally know someone that has accidentally spun his. Long story how he did it - classic pilot error of distraction. But a fairly low time pilot (perhaps 300 hours at the time) without any spin training simply did what his instructor told him to do in a spin and it recovered.

So, those accidents:

The Meadville one - the aircraft was flying in severe icing conditions and was likely carrying a huge load of ice. No single engine (let alone non FIKI) aircraft should have been anywhere near that Wx. The pilot did lose control, as any pilot of any aircraft would have. It is a poor connection to try to tie a plane with its airfoils highly modified and by ice to spin recovery capability. The pilot should have and did not deploy the chute when he lost control. Sadly, that killed himself and his family.

The Parrish NY one - the pilots had been seen repeated doing very aggressive maneuvers at airports. The fact that they got it in a spin (either deliberate or accidental) with that man handling is hardly surprising.

The Maybell, CO one - again iced up.

The Indianapolis, IN one - the plane was over 300 lbs over gross and the pilot had a medical problem. He later died, but the right seat passenger took the initiative to pull that chute at just over 500 feet and it saved his and two other persons lives. I bet they were glad to have it.

The point he makes (and one of few I agree with) is for whatever reason pilots are not pulling the chute handle when they should and they have plenty of time to do so. We can only conclude that those pilots either froze up during the recovery or did not have the chute on their mind as an option in their emergency recovery plans.

BTW, multiple Cirrus aircraft have been repaired and put back in service after a chute deployment. The descent rate of 17 MPH is very survivable for the plane and it occupants. Terrain makes a considerable difference on the condition of the airframe afterward.

I may be wrong, however from what I have read, I believe the parachute is there to meet FAA certification in lieu of demonstrated spin recovery.


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

Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover, according to the test pilots. ​

http://www.cirruspilots.org/blogs/pull_early_pull_often/archive/2008/10/13/spinning-caps.aspx

If in a spin and recovery doesn't work, PULL CAPS!​

Unfortunately, we know several Cirrus fatal accidents involved spins in which the pilots didn't recover and didn't pull CAPS.​

In Meadview, AZ, the NTSB reconstructed the flight path and found the plane spent 45 seconds in a 15-turn spin until ground impact. The CAPS parachute deployed post-impact.​

At Parish, NY, the pilots were at 5,000 feet practicing aggressive maneuvers, entered a flat-spin and impacted the ground. From that altitude, the pilots had at least 30 seconds to act. Yet the CAPS handle was still stowed and the safety pin in place.​

At Maybell, CO, the pilots reported icing at high altitude. Yet the plane crashed after a long descent and the CAPS parachute deployed post-impact with the CAPS handle found in the stowed position.​

And at Indianapolis, IN, the plane descended in a 5-turn spin before the CAPS handle was pulled at 528 feet AGL.​

http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/518694

Cirrus Parachute System (CAPS) ​

The Cirrus SR series (SRV, SR20, and SR22) aircraft are equipped with the Cirrus Aircraft Parachute System (CAPS), a ballistic parachute deployed from the back of the aircraft, in most cases, allows the entire aircraft to descend safely from an emergency. Cirrus is the first manufacturer to receive FAA certification for production aircraft with ballistic parachute systems. With the NASA-developed spin resistant wing, the parachute system was accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration as an equivalent level of safety and complete spin testing was not required by the FAA. ​

The Cirrus pilot's operating handbook states that the parachute system "is designed to bring the aircraft and its occupants to the ground in the event of a life-threatening emergency. The system is intended to save the lives of the occupants but will most likely destroy the aircraft and may, in adverse circumstances, cause serious injury or death to the occupants". As the SR aircraft have not been fully spin-tested, a properly-functioning CAPS system is required for flight on all Cirrus SR aircraft.​

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Oh, boy, here we go again.

First, we can have the dogmatic debate over the parachute for years and we won't get an answer, much like tailwheel vs nosewheel, -7 vs -8, O-320 vs O-360 in the -9 .... My preference is to have a parachute when I am flying, either for the airframe or on my back. There are lots of things it won't help you with, such as an in-flight fire (hmmm, do I dive at Vne and fan the flames, or pull the chute and slowly drive down like a slo-mo meteor?). The parachute helps in the event of structural failure, mid-air, night engine failure over rough terrain, spatial disorientation in IMC, pilot incapication, etc. It won't help for stall/spin in the pattern, excursions over Vne, fire, etc. It adds weight and complexity, but then so do things like two ignition systems, dual batteries or alternators, carb heat, etc. If you're building or buying, you get to decide.

Ok, if we put the parachute jihad aside for a minute, I think you will find the airplanes to be somewhat different, designed for and fulfilling different missions. Cirri (sorry, 2 years of studying latin) aren't the best airplanes to "hand fly" - the trim works on a spring system and the controls just don't have the good feel that we're used to on RVs. Visibility is good in the Cirrus, and the cabin is comfy - larger than the -10 IIRC. The 55X autopilot option is excellent. The -22 has good take-off and climb performance, particularly at high DA; maybe not as good as the -10, but still good. The POH says it's faster than the -10. The original and G2 wings are known for some bad flying characteristics at low speed, but the G3 wing (haven't flown a G3) is supposed to be much, much better.

It's a great traveling machine: The POH tells me that the SR22G3 will cruise at 169KT TAS on 11.3 gph at 14k MSL, ISA and will be climbing at over 500 fpm when it gets to 14,000 following a MGTW takeoff (more speed is available running at best power and/or lower). 88 gal usable fuel making for a 1000+ NM still-air range at that altitude. Available AC and anti-ice.

The major down side is that it will cost you a lot. A new one is $400k+ My local Cirrus service center tells me that annuals on well maintained Cirri are $5k to $7k.

The -10 is a lighter airplane, has better control feel and is more efficient (due to lighter weight). It's cheaper (looking at costs of "new" RV-10s and -22s) to purchase and maintain to boot.

However, the -10 is an EX/AB airplane. You can't just hand it to any A&P and say "please perform an annual inspection on the airplane". You can't call the factory and get a replacement rudder in case of hangar rash ("some assembly required").

If you want an EX/AB airplane that is good for traveling and don't mind being part A&P, the -10 is better. If you want a no-hassle flying transportation appliance, the -22 is better.

The deal-breaker is if you want a turbo. Van's will tell you over and over that the -10 has a Vne that is set based on flutter that is TAS limited; thus the airframe is not well suited to turbocharging. The -22 does not have a Vne that changes with altitude and, to me anyway, suggests that it is not flutter limited. Want to get to 21,000 to pick up an eastbound tailwind or to get away from terrain-induced turb out west? No problem with the -22 turbo. Of course, only a few of us are likely to ever need that capability. If I had it though, I would use it.

This isn't to knock the -10, which is a great airplane for what it does. It's just a different airplane from the SR22. The 22 turbo is in a class by itself.

TODR

 

[flyeyes]

(snip)
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20

Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover, according to the test pilots. ​

At some risk of thread creep and starting another "primer war" the author here is simply mistaken.

It is true that the intitial U.S. certification used the CAPS system as an "equivalent level of safety" rather than full traditional spin testing.

However then European authorities were not so easily persuaded and required spin testing for european certification.

The Cirrus passed the certification requirements without requiring any modifications. The test pilots reported "conventional" spin characteristics and conventional recovery techniques work just fine.

I wouldn't intentionally spin our Cirrus, but given a lot of altitude I would certainly try a conventional recovery before pulling the chute. OTOH if I had an engine failure in night IMC I would slow to just above stall and pull the chute. Day VFR I would certainly attempt a conventional landing, and would have a decision to make between 1000 and 500 AGL.

I like the chute, even though it helps in a relatively small number of scenarios. The biggest "bang for the buck" IMHO are:

1) reliable, redundant AOA instrumentation (cheap, helps with #1 cause of fatals)
2) GPWS (relatively cheap, #2 cause of fatals)
3) CO detection (rare but very cheap to implement)

The chute is very expensive, and very unlikely to be used in the life of the airplane. If I had been consulted, it would have been about # 8 on the list.​