SR-22G NOT SAFE!!!!

Guest Discussion
1

I have been reluctant to submit this post but feel every owner of the new Cirrus SR-22 G Model should be very weary of accepting this aircraft UNTIL CIRRUS design admits they have lied to its customers, and redesign the parachute deployment system on this plane!

I am an engineer, and in the process of researching this aircraft have found out that CIRRUS HAS NEVER TESTED THE PARACHUTE SYSTEM in these aircraft! This is very important because Cirrus engineers have redesigned the brackets that hold the parachute system for the new SR-22 G.

As an engineer I have concluded that the parachute if deployed WILL NOT WORK, as the harness kit is not strong enough to support the aircraft!

I am very unhappy with the response that I have from Cirrus in regards to this issue and have spoken to a customer service representative who informed me that she knew nothing about the re-design of the brackets to hold the parachute system in place, and went on to say that she “didnt think it was tested, as the parachute has worked fine in the past.” What kind of an answer is that?

So here is what I have concluded for all owners.

  1. Cirrus redesigned the the upper part of the fuselage to hold the parachute system, but the re-design is not strong enough to hold the parachute if deployed.

  2. Cirrus in their rush to produce this aircraft FAILED to test the parachute system to see if the re-design would hold the plane via the parachute system.

  3. Cirrus admits it did not test the system after the re-design because it worked in the past? Although not within the confines of the new engineering design.

Although I will not be flying in this weekend to Duluth, I would like those of you who are attending to ask questions and repost on here if you would be so kind.

2

In reply to:

…As an engineer I have concluded that the parachute if deployed WILL NOT WORK, as the harness kit is not strong enough to support the aircraft!..So here is what I have concluded for all owners.

  1. Cirrus redesigned the the upper part of the fuselage to hold the parachute system, but the re-design is not strong enough to hold the parachute if deployed.

Wow!

I presume you mean that during the deplyment phase that the fittings will fail or otherwise rip out of the fuselage?

As an engineer (aeronautical? civil? electrical? chemical?) I’m sure you will welcome some analysis and discussion of the very serious allegations you present as fact.

What dynamic loading figures did you use for your original and G2 calculations? I’m curious of just how did you obtain them? Did Cirrus provide you with their strain data they recorded during the intial deplyment testing?

What method did you use to caclulate the failure point of the new attachments? Are the load paths different?

Please, if you have credible answers to questions such as this please share them. And you might add to your credibility by posting your name and credentials.

3

PilotDesign or To Whom it May Concern:

re:

In reply to:

but the re-design is not strong enough to hold the parachute if deployed.

Something here does not add up. If the parachute is deployed, the parachute is supported (or, more logically, the plane is supported) by the web straps two of which are attached to the firewall and one attached to the rear fuselage.

So far as Cirrus’s testing of the chute, I think you are mistaken here also. The chute was tested repeatedly using weights and then the chute was deployed from an aircraft which was then cut away from the chute and flown away. The G2 is not a new type aircraft but is a modification to certain particulars of the original type certificate.

BTW, your name is not Art is it?

4

Mr PilotDesign: You have raised some very intersting questions, but your points are obfuscated behind the vail of anonymity. Some might even criticize you and say that you are just posting anonymously to hurt Cirrus Design or the owners of Cirrus aircraft. To me, your comments do not sound like the sound reasoned analysis of an engineer, but I am sure that I am alone with that assessment.

I think all of COPAs readers would like to know more about you, why you feel this way, what analysis you have performed and, where you obtained your facts.

5

I am not a psychic but I did stay in a Holiday Inn express last night. My crystal ball says you are full of post digestion bovine nutrition. but there is some good news…I saved a bunch of money on my Car insurance by switching to Geico…too bad they don’t insure Cirri.
Now Mr. Pilot Design, go talk to Michael Moore and get him to make a movie for you.
BTW, I talked to the Dixie Chicks and they have a shirt for you.

6

In reply to:

I have been reluctant to submit this post but feel every owner of the new Cirrus SR-22 G Model should be very weary of accepting this aircraft UNTIL CIRRUS design admits they have lied to its customers, and redesign the parachute deployment system on this plane!

And I am reluctant to respond to such a post, but I am sure you know you are going to get cross examined six ways from tomorrow anyway, so here goes. Let’s start with the assumption you are referring to the SR20 G2 and the SR22 G2, there is no such thing as the SR-22G. Believe me, this makes a difference to those of us with steam guage ‘antiques’. Your header and first statement imply you don’t know much about Cirrus or their aircraft, so I see a credibility issue creeping in here. Also, what is the lie Cirrus has told the new owners?

In reply to:

I am an engineer…

Yep, saw that in your bio. An AVIONICS engineer. So it appears you are no more qualified to make judgements regarding structural engineering than well, uh…a cat.

In reply to:

… and in the process of researching this aircraft…

And I wonder for what purpose…

In reply to:

… have found out that CIRRUS HAS NEVER TESTED THE PARACHUTE SYSTEM in these aircraft! This is very important because Cirrus engineers have redesigned the brackets that hold the parachute system for the new SR-22 G.

I suppose you are under the impression that using CAPS (no pun intended, honest) would make everyone stand up and gasp in horror. REDESIGNING THE BRACKETS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THE PARACHUTE SYSTEM MUST BE TESTED. I assure you, there are safety components on your car that have been redesigned without being tested.

In reply to:

As an engineer I have concluded that the parachute if deployed WILL NOT WORK, as the harness kit is not strong enough to support the aircraft!

So you are, once again reminding us you are an engineer. That’s nice. I notice your area of specialty is once again, conspicuously absent. Also, you started out saying the BRACKETS were the big concern, but now you say (definitively, I might add) that the harness kit is not strong enough. This, you have concluded by relying on your knowledge of avionics, I suppose.

In reply to:

I am very unhappy with the response that I have from Cirrus in regards to this issue and have spoken to a customer service representative who informed me that she knew nothing about the re-design of the brackets to hold the parachute system in place, and went on to say that she “didnt think it was tested, as the parachute has worked fine in the past.” What kind of an answer is that?

And I am sure there are many of us in the Cirrus community that are very unhappy because you are unhappy[:(]. This “…response from Cirrus…” you are loosely quoting is ludicrous. Since you are an engineer, I would have expected better. You should have put your data together in a concise, to the point form and presented it to someone that could discuss it from a position of knowledge. I took a plant tour recently and spoke with couple of the guys on the floor about how they do certain things. However, I knew not to ask them about my warranty coverage or how to modify my current flight plan in the GNS430. In short, get your sh@t together and ask the right people.

In reply to:

So here is what I have concluded for all owners.

And I am sure I am speaking for everyone when I say “Thanks for thinking of us!”

In reply to:

  1. Cirrus redesigned the the upper part of the fuselage to hold the parachute system, but the re-design is not strong enough to hold the parachute if deployed.

Yadda yadda yadda

In reply to:

  1. Cirrus in their rush to produce this aircraft FAILED to test the parachute system to see if the re-design would hold the plane via the parachute system.

Are you thinking that putting ‘failed’ in CAPS (oops, did it again) would cause all readers to conclude there was a requirement to test it.

In reply to:

  1. Cirrus admits it did not test the system after the re-design because it worked in the past? Although not within the confines of the new engineering design.

Cirrus admits they did not test the system after the redesign?! Again, you are phrasing all of your statements in a manner that implies there is some sort of guilt here. Prove it!

In reply to:

Although I will not be flying in this weekend to Duluth, I would like those of you who are attending to ask questions and repost on here if you would be so kind.

That is the weakest attempt at false sincerity I have heard since the last car salesman I spoke to.

7

Posts like this remind me of the need for Members Only discussion where the signal-to-noise ratio is is much better. Dear Mr. ‘Avionics Engineer’ the members of this site are too intelligent to fall for trash posts such as yours.
Don Kusenberger
SR22 #206

8

Speaking of safety and the Cirrus aircraft, posted below is a question I submitted to Mr. Radomsky about the Cirrus integral fuel tanks.

Dear Mr. Radomsky,

In response to the article Posted on Sun, Jul. 11, 2004, Cirrus pilots flock together:
AIRPLANES:Hundreds came to Duluth from all over the nation to socialize and learn about safety written by Jens Manuel Krogstad with the News Tribune, I would like to ask the following question:

Has anyone to your knowledge performed a simple test on the integral fuel tank of the Cirrus to insure that all hazardous quantities of water can be positively detected and eliminated during the preflight of the aircraft?

In the interest of safety and to save lives I thought COPA might be able to answer this question.

Best Regards,

Robert E. Scovill, Jr.
http://sumpthis.com/
Non-commercial research only website

9

I am the ultimate expert on the subject; so don’t think you can convince me otherwise.

10

In reply to:

I am an engineer, and in the process of researching this aircraft have found out that CIRRUS HAS NEVER TESTED THE PARACHUTE SYSTEM in these aircraft! This is very important because Cirrus engineers have redesigned the brackets that hold the parachute system for the new SR-22 G.

I spoke with the company today.

The allegations by this poster are simply not true. Specifically, every piece of the airplane that has anything to do with the parachute (and that changed in the transition to the G2 model), was fully tested.

  • Mike.
11

This individual no doubt has had some negative personal involvement with Cirrus. Perhaps he worked for them and was let go or wanted to work with them and was not hired. Sounds like sour grapes to me. I’m sure he will deny it, but this does not pass the smell test.

12

.

13

In reply to:

Although I don’t agree with him, I think he meant that the attaching hardware brackets between the straps and the fuselage at the firewall were redesigned and the hardpoints built into the new fuselage design at the firewall were also redesigned. Either and / or both of these components could not (according to his argument) sustain the g-force of the deployment / inflation cycle of the 'chute. I would think that Cirrus DID do some sort of drop tests with the new fuselage design to make sure that couldn’t happen. Just dropping a weighted airframe on straps from a crane (i.e. the Cirrus equivalent of a “bungee jump”) would suffice to reproduce the stressors involved. He is arguing Cirrus did no actual testing of these components and relied instead on pure math to get the new design certified.
As I said, I don’t believe him, but Cirrus HAS failed to actually test several “production run” (as compared to prototypes) components in the past…(CAPS cables, fuel tank selector valve shafts, etc…)

I didn’t think there was such a bracket. From what I recall from the factory tour, and
as usual please correct my failing memory, the front strap at least goes all the way
through a tube and is joined to itself to form one long strap. The rear one does
something similar. There’s nothing to break off.

If this poster continues to be a moron I’ll just delete his threads.

14

In reply to:

This individual no doubt has had some negative personal involvement with Cirrus. Perhaps he worked for them and was let go or wanted to work with them and was not hired. Sounds like sour grapes to me. I’m sure he will deny it, but this does not pass the smell test.

Wasn’t there a Jeff? Are you still around Jeff?

15

I smell a hatchet job…most likely BS.

16

Without any specific knowledge of the new chute design, it would be a safe bet that Cirrus has done their usual good job with this. Tested or not, it’s very likely to be functional, and a phone call by those of you with the right contacts would soon verify that.

But where the original post is of low signal to noise ratio, the real noise on this thread is made by the reactions of some members.

Is it about hallucinogenic drugs “Mr. Trip”, or was your post written directly by your little crystal balls?

17

In reply to:

But where the original post is of low signal to noise ratio, the real noise on this thread is made by the reactions of some members.
Is it about hallucinogenic drugs “Mr. Trip”, or was your post written directly by your little crystal balls?

Yes, Steve, I think we all agree that it is better to ignore trolls, but to blame the honest folks who stand behind their words with names, email addresses, etc., is a bit like blaming the victims of a crime.

I hope you are not suggesting that the original post had any credibility? Being so poorly written, so unlike a trained engineer’s style with loose facts and scant detail, and hidden behind anonymity, it is easy to see why the post would be disregarded and perceived as little more than a diversion deserving a humorous response.

I actually thought Trip Taylor’s response was hilarious, but then I have been told that I have an unusual sense of humor.

18

In reply to:

Without any specific knowledge of the new chute design, it would be a safe bet that Cirrus has done their usual good job with this. Tested or not, it’s very likely to be functional, and a phone call by those of you with the right contacts would soon verify that.
But where the original post is of low signal to noise ratio, the real noise on this thread is made by the reactions of some members.
Is it about hallucinogenic drugs “Mr. Trip”, or was your post written directly by your little crystal balls?

Yea, right Steve. Sit there and tell all of us that if this same guy had posted silly nonsense such as this critical of the Lancair 350 on the LOPA site you and all of the other Lancairians wouldn’t have called him out with numerous responses. C’mon.

And I thought Trip’s posting was hilarious too. Left me laughing my @ss off, and I probably will vote for Bush again. There, take THAT Marty![:D]

19

But where the original post is of low signal to noise ratio, the real noise on this thread is made by the reactions of some members.
Is it about hallucinogenic drugs “Mr. Trip”, or was your post written directly by your little crystal balls?
[/quote]

Steve,
I thought Trip’s post was humorous especially in light of “Mr. PilotDesign2003’s” posting. Why all the anger?
Don Kusenberger
N41XP SR22

20

In reply to:

s it about hallucinogenic drugs “Mr. Trip”, or was your post written directly by your little crystal balls?

No Steve, not crystal but Brass