Birge,
At last! Thoughtful opinions, points well-taken, no bogus “facts.”
-Mike
Birge:
You’d be surprised - I actually am a nice guy!
Admittedly I took your statements and ran with them, but I do take exception to your using the word “fact” far too easily and loosely.
You have good points to make about the psychology of the 'chute. Make them, let’s talk about them. You don’t need to try and stretch the data to make your point. It weakens your argument because it detracts from it.
Actually, I wasn’t aware of the personal information stuff. I’ve rectified the situation. You can now flame me directly to my inbox!
Although I did not upset nearly as many people as Birge did with his post (perhaps I am more eloquent), I made a similar point about the 'chute several months ago. I think that certain accidents in 2001 (the first and last of that year) bolstered my opinion in my own mind (perhaps no where else) that the 'chute might encourage some pilot who was on the fence about going on a particular dangerous flight to go on that flight. (non IFR pilot into IMC, or out scud running just to get too far behind airplane.)
I do not believe that the 'chute should be removed, but I do think that Cirrus owners, trainers, and pilots should talk about it more, and train AS IF IT WASN’T THERE. It was designed to be a last resort. Nice to have, don’t change your decision-making process.
I know that all (most) of you feel that you wouldn’t do anything in a Cirrus that you wouldn’t do in a spam can. I have heard others say that among other things (it has dual vacuum pumps, better instrumentation, etc.) the 'chute would give them the push they needed to go (they have said that to me and on this forum.) You WANT to use the extra instrumentation and can rely on it in many cases, you do not want to use the 'chute and certainly shouldn’t rely on it. It’s a great thing to have (enter your own automobile airbag analogy here.), might save your a** someday, but you don’t want to try it.
My suggestion is not to remove it, that’s ludicruous (sp?) but to train as if it were not there. Train to use it, but don’t encourage those vulnerable pilots who might succumb to the siren of flight when they or the airplane might not be up to the challenge.
In the end, it will likely matter to all of you. If you don’t change your GO/NO GO decisions on the 'chute’s presence that’s great. Some pilots might, and if they crash, then the insurance situation could change. Pilot error (even judgement errors) are not excluded. If it were, we’d all be paying much less in premiums, but would all be paying a lot more claims out of our own pockets. Stupidity, oops, I mean pilot error is the primary fault found in most accidents. (reference NTSB report on last weeks crash when it is published very soon.)
I think it is all of our responsibility to stay vigilant and keep ourselves and others sharp. If someone you like is telling you how they “narrowly escaped” doing some “death defying feat” over a (insert your beverage choice here), you should encourage them to stop doing that. Tell them you like drinking (repeat beverage choice here) with them, and don’t want to lose them as a friend. Sounds sappy, I know, and makes you out to be a fuddy duddy (sp?). But, it just might save their life. And if we all did that, how many fewer accidents might there be?
$.01 (not 2 cents because I’m just a helicopter pilot… what do I know)
John “JT” Helms
Branch Manager
NationAir Insurance Agency
how the hell can you conclude that there is a “significant” risk in doing them.
I would point out that the Lancair was certified as spin resistant (it has no spin recovery) by the addition of a rudder limiter during power on stalls. Full aileron control is maintained (you can leave your feet flat on the floor during the stall). The Cirrus was not certified as spin resistant and requires the parachute for recovery. Based on the above it would seem to be a safe statement that power on stalls in a Cirrus are more difficult to control than in a Lancair.
Based on the above it would seem to be a safe statement that power on stalls in a Cirrus are more difficult to control than in a Lancair.
Art,
I respectfully disagree. I think the safe statement is that maintaining proper coordinated flight through a stall is important in any aircraft.
I like having full rudder authority available to help me get out of any unusual attitude that I might find myself in. I’ve never had any problem controlling a power-on stall in my '22. But I’m hoping to fly a Columbia 300 sometime soon so that I can see how this exciting new design compares.
BTW, Cirrus ailerons also remain effective during the stall. This is the purpose of the wing cuff.
Best regards,
George
N747SJ
Your post will rank as the dumbest post of all time.
Maybe. I believe we have a candidate for second, though.
Nope. I admit I’m basing my argument on hearsay. I’ve heard from a few sources that the Cirrus will break pretty aggressively in a power on stall, and I’m assuming that the accident in Syracuse was a spin.
I would love to take you up on your offer. I’ll pay for gas.
but I am truely puzzeled why no one who has had any type of mishap has not pulled the chute…
At least one did and it did not work.
The May 2002 issue of Aviation Safety has an article on spins that sheds some more light on the subject. The sub-heading reads “Buzzing and hot-dogging are the leading spin scenarios, often by highly qualified pilots who ought to know better.”
The article goes on to say, “If you think spin accidents are the province of inexperienced pilots, you’ll have to alter your expectations. Private pilots were involved in 46.4 percent of the spin accidents and student pilots accounted for 3.8 percent. That means the other half were commercial pilots, ATPs, instructors - not the neophytes you might expect.”
Birge- Even though you’ve taken a trashing on this forum, I for one would like to thank you for bringing some decent discussion on the SRxx power stall issues. I, too, have experienced some nasty breaks in doing some basic training on my Sr20. I can’t imagine that I’m the only one who has had this experience. However maybe there is some reluctance to admit to it or I’m just sensitive to a quick stall break coming from a docile Maule. Either way I commend you for your courage in stating your opinions and dealing with the fanatical behavior of some of our members.
Best Wishes,
Eric Goldfine
Just one data point; the NTSB lists 41 fatal accidents in Cessna 182s in the period July 1999 until now. No use trying to compare that with the Cirrus yet, but just to illustrate the fact that lots of people die in the 182 (and a similar number in 172s, which has one of the best records in GA). The Cirrus should be able to do better, over time. Let’s all try to make that happen.
Birge, many of your points seem irrelevant as 90% of all spins occur below 300agl. Spin entry has much more relevance than spin recovery since most spins occur near the ground. Aviation Safety has an excellent article on spins in the most recent issue.
Thoughtful remarks from Birge.
This may be a little off topic, but with so much discussion of spins, fear of spins, etc., it makes me wonder why more pilots aren’t more comfortable with them (of course, I know why…because they aren’t taught spins anymore). I’ve been training in a Pitts the past 6 months just for the fun of it, but have developed an entirely new view about all flight attitudes. Once you get a little proficiency in that plane, you quickly realize it just doesn’t care whether it’s upside down, spinning, inverted spinning, knife-edge, etc. It’s all just flying as far as the Pitts is concerned…and as far as this pilot goes, one attitude is as easy to fly (and fly out of) as the other. So for all those who were taught (as I was, by a nervous young instructor) that approaches to stalls are to be feared, I encourage you to go out and get a little aerobatic time, particularly unusual attitude recoveries. You learn to detect the edge a lot quicker, to keep your paws off the ailerons and become much more proficient with the rudder. Besides, you’ll have a blast.
Regarding the recent Cirrus accident…of course, regrettably, the Cirrus was never spin certified, so no one really knows what to except from it in a spin, or how to recover. But if there is sufficient altitude, there’s a technique that will recover from virtually any attitude in almost any plane. First power off, then neutral aileron AND neutral elevator, then look over the NOSE of the plane (not over your head) to determine direction of spin, full opposite rudder and just wait. You’ll either end up pointed straight down, so all you have to do is pull back; or you’ll be upside down. In the latter case, just wait and the nose will eventually fall and you’ll be straight down (backside of a loop), after which you just pull back. That’s it. In fact, with power off, most planes will eventually recover if you do nothing else. The most important thing is power off, and sit on your hands…no aileron inputs, as that will often exacerbate the spin.
Personally, as far as the recent accident goes, I find it hard to believe those experienced pilots slipped into an unrecoverable spin on a clear day through control inputs. I wonder whether the rudder bellcrank broke on that plane.
Comments anyone?
Thanks for raising some important questions, and thanks for honoring the spirit of accountable argument by adding your real name etc. But on a few specifics.
-
The bottom line is that four people are dead in an airplane with less than 1000 units out.<<
I’m afraid this is like the “fact” that the NY crash was a spin. Actually, six people have died in SR2x airplanes, five if you count production models, two for reasons that might even possibly involve the spin scenario.
Scott Anderson, Cirrus’s much-adored test pilot, died in a test flight, because of aileron problems that led to an aileron redesign. Three people were aboard the aircraft that crashed a year ago, in a tragic but classic VFR-into-IMC accident near Tucson. Now two people are dead in New York. That’s three fatal accidents, two in production planes, one raising “spin” questions.
Two people in a possible spin accident is two too many. Six dead for any reason is six too many. But again it would be useful to be more precise in what you’re describing. -
Am I correct in inferring that you’ve never actually flown a 20 or 22? Or even been in one? That’s fine if so. But it might suggest a less authoritative tone in the face of responses from people who have spent, now, several years and many hundreds of hours in the airplane, saying that its control, spin, recovery, etc properties are different from what you’re assuming.
-
If you’ve never seen a spin, it will freak the hell out of you and you WILL do the wrong thing the first time (at least). You won’t think about the chute, you won’t remember the verbal instructions your CFI gave you.<<
I share this opinion. That’s based on having gone out for several sessions of spin training in an Aerobat, precisely so if I ever encountered a real-world spin it wouldn’t be the first one I’d seen. In an inquiring rather than baiting fashion, I ask: is your opinion the product of spin training? An unintentional spin while flying? Unusual-attitude recovery while getting an instrument rating? What’s this based on? The categorical certainty of your assertions naturally raises questions about their basis. This leads to: -
In the aforementioned 182, there are two big things keeping you from killing yourself in a stall gone bad: (1) you’re scared to death of spinning because you know it will be up to you to fix and (2) ironically enough, if you do spin it, it will come out eventually without you doing anything.<<
Why is this particular to the 182? The first factor you mention would apply to any airplane. And while I have no first-hand experience in spins in a Cirrus, I believe that several people have suggested here that its recovery properties are like other airplanes. Why is this a bigger risk factor for the Cirrus? I understand the parachute-as-part-of-spin-certification point. The question is whether there is a performance basis for thinking the plane would not have normal spin-recovery properties.
Again I appreciate the spirit of your questions and share your concern that – for whatever reason – people are dying in what was supposed to be the radically safer new airplane. But I think some of the heat you’ve encountered is due to a combination of super-confident tone and overstatements like some of the above.
Haven’t seen the article referred to, so I’m not sure what the source of the “90%” figure is, but can I respectfully suggest that it might be “90% of all spins that result in an accident” occur below 300 AGL? We could add “unintentional” there as well, but I’m willing to bet that all spins below 300AGL are unintentional!
Fanatical! Fanatical!?! Why, when I hear that or hear anyone saying anything bad about Cirrus it makes my blood boil!!
Seriously, Mr. Birge has made some excellent points. The way that he made those points in his first few postings rubbed some people (including me) the wrong way. We need more such discussions, minus the inflammatory remarks and the resulting flames.
Maybe we should stick with less-controversial topics, like high-wing versus low-wing, or slipping with flaps in a 172, or loss of airspeed on the downwind turn 
Regards,
-Mike
Dave, you mentioned that you feel that acrobatic training will allow one to experience a close to the edge feeling with regard to unusual attitudes. Conversely, this type of training may decondition ones survival instincts and allow one to push the edge. This notion is at first contrary to what one may think, but is in my mind supported nicely by a report in this months Aviation Safety. The author has been a proponent to spin training, but after reviewing the accident reports, he now feels that spin training may be counterproductive in that it makes the pilots feel more comfortable in attitudes that approach spins and may actually contribute to the spin fatalities. According to this article 90% of spin fatalities occur at 300 agl or less and no spin technique can save you. Only 8% of spin fatalities are student pilots and a very high number not related to icing are due to ostentatious displays by CFI’s, ATPs, and many acrobatic trained pilots. A surprisingly large number specifically had spin training. The best way to recover from a spin is to stay out of one.
But again it would be useful to be more precise in what you’re describing.
I agree.
Am I correct in inferring that you’ve never actually flown a 20 or 22? Or even been in one?
No, I haven’t flown one. The reason I feel I can suggest what I have suggested is that: (1) It’s possible to have good discussions on topics for which you don’t have complete information. I would say all human conversation falls into this category, in fact. (2) Nobody here has ever spun a Cirrus, either, since you’re not allowed to. (3) I’ve done a lot of listening and reading. I’ve read all the NTSB reports for Cirri and have listened to users’ comments on the plane. I’ve noticed that there certainly is reason to suspect that the spin characteristics are worth talking about, and that there is reason to suspect a few gremlins left to be fixed in the design.
In an inquiring rather than baiting fashion, I ask: is your opinion the product of spin training?
Sort of. When I was a student pilot I would take a 152 out and do aggressive power on stalls in order to learn to recover from incipient spins. I later took some aerobatic training, but never ended up doing spins (even though that’s why I originally wanted to do the training). What i learned was that even an incredibly docile airplane could bite you in a stall, because the aerodynamics are so chaotic at that point that it’s hard for a pilot to predict exactly what’s going to happen. The airplane is no longer intuitive. During one stall, the break was so sharp that I was almost upside down before I started to recover. While I did the right thing nominally (applied forward pressure and opposite rudder) I did so with much more “gusto” than was warranted and ended up hanging from the seatbelt. I wasn’t really thinking, just operating under adrenaline. I knew that the 152 would recover if I took my hands off the controls, which is why I even considered doing it to begin with. Plus, I figured risking my own life over desolate terrain was probably ok if it made me a safer pilot while with passengers. My point is I’m NOT confident. I have no illusions that I’m a great pilot or anything who could get out of any situation. I’m pretty certain that I would not handle a wake turbulence upset very well, for example, which I imagine makes me pretty good about staying far behind big airplanes when landing. Fear is the best thing a pilot can have, because confidence evaporates for all of us when things go wrong.
Why is this particular to the 182?
It’s not. I think it’s particular to any airplane which doesn’t promise to give you a way out. I know people here feel that most or all pilots don’t let the chute affect their decisions, and that’s probably correct for people here. But a read through Cirrus literature will make it obvious that that is the image they are intentionally promoting. I think it’s also a big reason the Cirrus has a much bigger backlog than Lancair. I’ve heard at least two people with orders pretty much state “I don’t have enough time to really train like a pro, so the chute really makes me feel better about flying my family.” I’d feel the same way, too, if it weren’t for learning about all the problems with the chute.
But I think some of the heat you’ve encountered is due to a combination of super-confident tone and overstatements like some of the above.
I certainly admit fault in making overstatements. It’s a problem of mine when arguing. But I REALLY didn’t mean to give any impression of overconfidence. If I were over confident, I’d be interested in buying a Lancair, because they seem to be of the mind set that getting killed is ok as long as you do it going 200 knots. (I’d say the Lancair IV should be outlawed, but I’m a libertarian.) I felt that Cirrus was the first company to have the intelligence to acknowledge that pilots can’t be expected to be perfect, and so I’m a little frustrated that it might be backfiring.
Jon:
I, for one, want to give you some credit for asking impoetant questions. The nature of email is such that your tone and intent often come off misrepresented in the raw words written. You have corrected a number of points and have “hung in against the heat”. Keep asking questions. All good principals should hold up to questioning.
Remember a few points:
- Your own experience in the 152 makes you afraid of spins.
- If you did that in a 152, you could do it in a 172 or a 182 or a Cirrus for that matter.
- Spin experiences in Cirrus planes is limited because of the fact the plane is not certified. But inadvertant encounters, as we have read, leads us to think the Cirrus is no WORSE with spin handling than any other plane.
- MOST IMPORTANTLY, we DO NOT KNOW what caused the NY crash. Maybe it spun, but maybe there was a mechanical malfunction that prevented control of the plane? Who knows? Until we have more data, it is ill thought to assume that the plane’s spin characteristics are at fault here.
- Having flown the plane, I have found the plane to be MORE resistant to any unusual attitudes strictly because the spring loaded side stick makes the plane want to return to neutral rather than any other attitude. This is NOT true of the Cessnas at all.
My suggestion: Keep asking questions but go fly the plane, find out how nice it flies, and I guarentee most of your fears will melt away.
Brian