Parachute planes?

[englishal]

I'd say to pull a chute having successfully recovered to controlled flight was crazy!

Maybe not if you have just recovered from an unexplained black out and are not feeling 100% - what if it happened again on short final?....I see what you are saying though and had it been an inadvertent unusual attitude I'd have landed it.

I'd be concerned about flying any aircraft that hasn't been tested in a spin?

Then you should never fly in a twin It is unlikely a twin would be recoverable in a spin, certainly not from a low height (<6000'). When they flight test these they often have spin chutes fitted which they pull to arrest the spin if it happens, and can then be jettisoned.

[Fuji Abound]

The European authorities (initially JAA, later EASA) when first evaluating the Cirrus SR20 agreed with the principles of the FAA/ELOS approach but had some further questions. A series of spins was performed on their initiative. While not a complete formal program they reported no unusual characteristics.

How many "modern" aircraft not specifically certified for spinning are fully tested during the certification process. I suspect the answer is very few, if any. In reality you should perhaps be concerned to be flying almost every aircraft if this is your criteria.

Spinning was dropped from the PPL syllabus many years ago - some agree, some dont. The fact is how many pilots would successfully recover from an unintentional spin? Possibly not that many, and that is assuming they have the height in which to do so.

I am happy to admit that the first time I went "spinning" I found the experience quite disorientating and I had already done some basic aerobatic training before. Of course with a little time you are aware of what the aircraft is doing and what you need to do - but that is true of many things.

d. Following an abused control entry stall controllability demonstration, the aircraft must respond
immediately and normally without unreversed use of the controls and without exceeding the temporary
control forces specified in § 23.143(c) to regain coordinated unstalled flight.
The FAA also determined, as stated in the ELOS, that the probability of high altitude loss of control is very
low. In the event that control is lost, the CAPS system provides an effective means to protect the occupants.
The departure resistance aspects of the ELOS are primary, but the presence of the CAPS system is an
additional risk mitigating feature due to its ability to recover the aircraft in less than 1000 feet.
In its presentation to the JAA Sectorial Team on February 26, 2003, the FAA re-stated its philosophy. The
primary focus is to prevent departure from controlled flight / spin entry, through three aspects.
• First, the FAA found that the enhanced stall handling characteristics are based on the intent of the spin
resistance requirements.
• Second, the FAA found that the improved departure resistance addresses the real issue driving the
accident rate – inadvertent departure from controlled flight – and that this supports the US Department
Of Transportation’s safety mandate.
• Third, the FAA concluded that the Cirrus wing treatment and handling characteristics are parallel to
NASA research.
The FAA’s secondary focus of addressing these accidents is the low altitude departure recovery being possible
using the CAPS system, The FAA noted that the CAPS system recovers the airplane in the same or less
altitude than airplanes in the same class take to recover from the one-turn spin requirement of sec. 23.221. The
FAA saw the stall handling characteristics providing the ability to recover from a stall without losing control
or entering a spin, and the CAPS system as a second line of defense. (John Colomy, FAA, address to the
Sectorial Team on 26 February 2003)
JAA Requested Items
1. Provide additional information on SR20 Stall characteristics and Spin behavior.
Cirrus engaged in an extensive flight test program to investigate the stall characteristics and spin behavior of
the Cirrus SR 20, with over 60 spin entries, and the stall and departure preceding the spin entries.
a. Stall Behavior
i. Requirements. See above ELOS text for requirements. After this flight test program,
Cirrus continues to believe that the standards set in the ELOS are correct. The stall
departure standards set for the SR20 simulate realistic inadvertent stall situations.
ii. Results. The SR20 meets or exceeds the ELOS requirements in all required
configurations. See SR20 TIR for detail on stall results in Appendix 2. The Airplane
retains roll control throughout the stall. The airplane can be rolled from 15 degrees of
bank in one direction to 15 degrees of bank in the other direction with the stick full back
with typical pilot skill.
iii. Comments. FAA and JAA test pilots have formally and informally flown the SR20 and
agree that the aircraft meets or exceeds the ELOS requirements, is tolerant of slow speed
uncoordinated control movements, and provides the pilot with significant time and
indications to apply corrections.
CRI B-2 Page 4 of 21
b. Spin Behavior
i. Test Matrix. A limited investigation of the SR20 spin behavior has been completed and
results are contained in Cirrus Design reports 12419, title, and 15568, title. The incipient
spin and recovery characteristics were examined during more than 60 total spin entries
covering the following configurations.
Configuration1
Normal Spins
Level Entry C.G.
Clean-Power Off
Takeoff-Power Off
Landing-Power Off
Clean-Power On
1 Left & 1 Right
1 Left & 1 Right
1 Left & 1 Right
1 Left & 1 Right
Fwd2, Mid, Aft
Fwd
Fwd
Fwd2
1. All spins conducted at gross weight.
2. Also evaluated accelerated entries, 30 degree banked turn entries, and effects of ailerons against
the spin direction.
ii. Results. The aircraft recovered within one turn in all cases examined. Recovery controls
were to reduce power, neutralize ailerons, apply full rudder opposite to spin, and to apply
immediate full forward (nose down) pitch control. Altitude loss from spin entry to
recovery ranged from 1,200 – 1,800 feet. Detail results can be found in the above
referenced reports.
iii. Comments. No spin matrix less than that prescribed in AC23-8A or AC23-15, can
determine that all configurations are recoverable. It must be assumed that the SR20 has
some unrecoverable characteristics. In the SR20 proper execution of recovery control
movements is necessary to affect recovery, and aircraft may become unrecoverable with
incorrect control inputs. These spins enabled Cirrus to gain additional understanding of
both the stall departure characteristics of the airplane and the necessary spin recovery
techniques.

Sorry about the poor reproduction above, but this summarises the additional findings of the JAA.

EASA "recommended" that in the event of an inadvertent spin with sufficient height to recover "normal" spin recovery should be applied for 5 seconds and only IF this is unsuccessful should the chute be deployed. It would appear EASA at least considers that assuming you know what you are doing you have a reasonable chance of a Cirrus recovering from a spin.

[IO540]

Good discussion...

I still cannot see how one is going to get into a spin - base to final turn excepted - without doing something really careless.

Actually there is another way and that is probing the operating ceiling, and as your IAS falls (due to lack of power etc) towards Vs, then you have a stall condition. That would be around FL220 for the SR22.

The focus on spins (now removed from the PPL) would have been better spent teaching pilots to fly in a more deliberate fashion... always trim for a specific speed especially when flying below cruise speed (i.e. in the circuit) and be very careful. I was never taught to trim during my PPL training; only afterwards I discovered that the trim really controls the aircraft speed, and how doing it right reduces pilot workload.

Also an understanding of how Vs varies with wing loading would help - you can do really steep turns at low speeds if you couple that with unloading the wings during the turn (this means losing height).

[SNS3Guppy]

The business about spinning has been done to death everywhere and there is no evidence I know of that a Cirrus will not recover from a spin.

What evidence do you know of that the airplane will recover from a spin?

Whereas it wasn't demonstrated for certification, you get to be an ad hoc tester if you elect to find out. You might end up actually doing to to death, in that event.

Almost any conventional plane will recover from a spin.

Not true. Some will, some won't. Spin dynamics are complex, and can vary markedly in t he same airplane depending on loading, configuration, power, and recovery technique. Further, the methods and their liklihood of success depend very much on a variety of factors. Neutral ailerons, ailerons into the spin, or away from the spin may be required, depending on the platform. The same applies to power and it's use, etc.

However, one has to stall first, and the only place that is going to happen is on the base to final turn, and there one is much too low to use the chute.

Very much not true. A 747SP experienced a departure and incipient spin, recovering after a 30,000' altitude loss, in 1985. It can happen to all aircraft under many different circumstances...not merely a base to final turn.

[Fuji Abound]

What evidence do you know of that the airplane will recover from a spin?

Common on, if you are going to take part in the discussion you have to READ the posts before. I have set out what spin testing the JAA / EASA / FAA have done. The testing clearly was not as comprehensive as for an aircraft cleared for intentional spinning but it would seem it was no less comprehensive that many aircraft that are not approved for spinning and dont have a chute.

I am beginning to wonder if you just have something against Cirrus?

From my point of view, I am not suggesting I have the answers to some interesting questions on this thread. However I would far rather consider the evidence than jump to irrational conclusions. I am flying a SR22 but dont have much time on type yet - so I have a vested interest. I am certainly not defending Cirrus because I think they are the best thing out of the box, and I am keeping an open mind.

[shortstripper]

I'd say to pull a chute having successfully recovered to controlled flight was crazy!

Maybe not if you have just recovered from an unexplained black out and are not feeling 100% - what if it happened again on short final?....I see what you are saying though and had it been an inadvertent unusual attitude I'd have landed it.

Cor! talk about pick the bits out to make me look like a lummox! If you read the previous bit to what you quoted me you'll see that I did give the chap his due in the circumstances .... here's what I wrote again with the bit you ommited bold for clarity Given his circumstances fine ... but otherwise you'd be better off flying carefully and landing rather than pulling a chute.

Having a brain seizure must be very scary (even more so in flight) so I'm sure he did what his confused brain told him was correct at the time. If it hadn't been for that though, I'd say to pull a chute having successfully recovered to controlled flight was crazy!

As for the spinning bit, fair enough ... I hol up my hands in defeat on that score.

SS

[IO540]

A 747SP experienced a departure and incipient spin

Not recently parked next to one of those, that I recall. Is it one of the old Cessna twins? ME planes don't have any spin recovery requirements.

I would in any case be suprised if one could enter a spin prior to departure. Normally one needs to be airborne for a spin to occur (unless it is extremely windy).

[Fuji Abound]

Is it one of the old Cessna twins? ME planes don't have any spin recovery requirements.

..........

[SNS3Guppy]

Common on, if you are going to take part in the discussion you have to READ the posts before. I have set out what spin testing the JAA / EASA / FAA have done. The testing clearly was not as comprehensive as for an aircraft cleared for intentional spinning but it would seem it was no less comprehensive that many aircraft that are not approved for spinning and dont have a chute.

Irrelevant. The Cirrus wasn't tested for, demonstrated for, or certified for spins, or spin recovery. You should also do some reading, and you'll find that the post upon which you're commenting wasn't made in reply to your statement, but that of IO540. Again, contrary to his assertion that as there is no evidence the aircraft will not recover from a spin, I again offer that there is no evidence that it will.

From your post:

Test Matrix. A limited investigation of the SR20 spin behavior has been completed and results are contained in Cirrus Design reports 12419, title, and 15568, title. The incipient spin and recovery characteristics were examined during more than 60 total spin entries covering the following configurations.

What it doesn't tell you is that each incipient entry, not a spin, was done with a spin recovery chute...something the owner or renter doesn't have (but has a CAPS brs parachute system in lieu thereof). There is no evidence that the airplane will recover from a spin.

Not recently parked next to one of those, that I recall. Is it one of the old Cessna twins? ME planes don't have any spin recovery requirements.

No, it's a little bigger with more power, is more stable, and is flown by substantially higher qualified crews...with three airman watching, flying, monitoring, and a much more advanced autopilot. Never the less, contrary to your assertion that a stall won't happen anywhere else other than a base to final turn...that airplane was stalled and rolled over to the vertical with a 30,000' loss, while in cruise over the Pacific ocean. It can happen...though what that has to do with parked airplanes or airplanes not airborne, as you've introduced, is anybody's guess.

We see that several of the deployments by owners of the Cirrus have occured when they placed themselves in positions to experience upsets in flight, leading to departing controlled flight...one of the reasons that Cirrus advertises their system for use. It seems that a stall and even a spin might also be entered by a light airplane pilot in a CAPS equipped cirrus while in cruise flight...imagine that. The example is relevant after all.

[IO540]

Oh dear Mr SNS3 I better never fly a 747 ever again.

Where is "DFC" when we need him most? I am sure he would set the record straight in no time at all.

We are such a bunch of UN-professionals here. I am sure we need at least TWO professionals to keep us lot in line.

[Fuji Abound]

you'll find that the post upon which you're commenting wasn't made in reply to your statement, but that of IO540.

I set out details of some of the spin trials conducted before your post. I dont mind if you wish to comment selectively, but that is not the way a discussion usually works.

Again, contrary to his assertion that as there is no evidence the aircraft will not recover from a spin, I again offer that there is no evidence that it will.

How do you define a spin? Are you talking about a fully established spin, are you talking about a complete rotation, what are you talking about?

Where do you consider the certification process for the Cirrus departs from other light aircraft NOT certified for spinning?

Are you asserting that the work done on the Cirrus falls short of other GA aircraft NOT certified for spinning?

I am seeking to establish whether it is your contention that there is clear evidence a Cirrus is any more or less proven in its ability to recover from a spin than any other NON spin certified light aircraft, so we are clear on what it is we are discussing.

[SNS3Guppy]

Oh dear Mr SNS3 I better never fly a 747 ever again.

What has that to do with the price of tea in china, exactly? Seems that the cirrus stalls just the same, and stalls and departures have happened in many different airplanes, light or heavy. Your light dismissal of the possibility of a stall is clearly in error, and you can cloud the issue all you like...but the fact is you were wrong to so state, and you're still wrong.

And yes, doubtless you'll not find yourself flying for a living. Your attitude would certainly seem to preclude it.

Fujiabound, clearly the SR20 didn't exhibit favorable characteristics for spin recovery. Emphasis was placed on stall avoidance and spin prevention, with the use of the parachute as a secondary method to back up a pilot who didn't manage to keep the airplane shiny side up in the first place.

In the SR20 proper execution of recovery control
movements is necessary to affect recovery, and aircraft may become unrecoverable with
incorrect control inputs.

So far as comparisons with multi engine airplanes that have large masses and assymetrical thrust laterally displaced outboard of the longitudinal centerline...it's a ridiculous comparison. Start by comparing it to other single engine airplanes, first.

Truth is that Cirrus is in the middle of a series of lawsuits right now regarding fatalities which have occured following fatal crashes (and yes, some involved parachute failures). The details of those cases will not be made available until the matters are concluded. Unfortunately a personal friend is embroiled in the matter. That has no bearing on my view on the aircraft or the company. While I was a supporter of Cirrus before they became public, and have always wished Klappmeier and company well, I have also never been silent regarding my distain for their marketing of the parachute system and the effect it has had on an inepxerienced and unwitting market. Nearly overwhelmingly, the attraction to the BRS installation appeals to those with the least experience, and that is telling.

[Fuji Abound]

Fujiabound, clearly the SR20 didn't exhibit favorable characteristics for spin recovery. Emphasis was placed on stall avoidance and spin prevention, with the use of the parachute as a secondary method to back up a pilot who didn't manage to keep the airplane shiny side up in the first place.

I dont see on what evidence you base that statement? 60 spins were conducted including complete rotations. The spin may not have been fully established but never the less in every case the aircraft recovered using conventional spin recovery.

As I indicated earlier JAA required the POH to be amended such that the pilot should apply standard spin recovery inputs and only in the event recovery was not effected within 60 seconds, or there was insufficient height in the first place, should the chute be deployed. Presumably based on the evidence the JAA felt there was a reasonable probability of the aircraft recovering.

You may well be correct that the Cirrus does not exhibit favourable spin recovery characteristics but you still have not explained how you reach this conclusion on the basis of the evidence so far discussed.

Truth is that Cirrus is in the middle of a series of lawsuits right now regarding fatalities which have occured following fatal crashes (and yes, some involved parachute failures). The details of those cases will not be made available until the matters are concluded. Unfortunately a personal friend is embroiled in the matter.

Law suits mean nothing. In America there is an expression - if you have had a bad day, poor yourself a good glass of wine and mull over who you can sue. That is not to say there may not be merit in the case(s) but it is not relevant to this discussion other than as a distraction unless you care to share the details of the case.

Nearly overwhelmingly, the attraction to the BRS installation appeals to those with the least experience, and that is telling.

I do worry about some of your "statements". I cannot imagine on what evidence you base that assertion?

I can however think of an analogy. Twins are frequently promoted as being "safer" because of the extra engine. The evidence however is that you are more likely to kill yourself in a twin following an engine failure so it is popular to conclude they are not safer. Of course what everyone forgets is if you give a pilot a tool with the intention of reducing fatalaties but the training is inadequate for him to use that tool correctly then dont be surprised when he kills himself. The corrrect conclusion is that a twin is more dangerous than a single unless the pilot receives adequate and recurrent training in which event a twin is "safer"

Another is the MU-2. Its accident record is so poor the FAA has mandated additional training. It would be easy to conclude the aircraft is "unsafe". However the FAA after careful analysis of the evidence has had the sense to avoid this conclusion. Rather they have concluded that the aircraft has some characteristics which requires additional training. Since these requirments were introduced there have been no accidents involving the MU-2.

I cant help feel that you are not distinguishing between cause and effect in some of your posts. I would like to be wrong, but unless you can set out the evidence on which you rely more clearly I dont know what else to conclude.

[SNS3Guppy]

I dont know what else to conclude.

I'm not concerned with your conclusions; draw them where you will.

60 spins were conducted including complete rotations.

No. 60 incipient spin entries were conducted.

The spin may not have been fully established but never the less in every case the aircraft recovered using conventional spin recovery.

Again, non-sequitor. You have no idea how many attempts were conducted with deployment of a spin recovery chute or drogue. 60 demonstrations were made to the incipient phase; that is, 60 initial spin entry maneuvers, which were terminated within the first turn.

You may well be correct that the Cirrus does not exhibit favourable spin recovery characteristics but you still have not explained how you reach this conclusion on the basis of the evidence so far discussed.

There is no conclusion to reach. Cirrus declined to investigate spin recovery characteristics by refusing to spin the airplane. An incipient spin is an initial phase in the entry of a spin, but is not a spin. It's playing around the funnel, the start of departure of controlled flight; it is not a spin, and Cirrus did not demonstrate the spin. Only spin entries.

You wonder how I came to the conclusion that there is no evidence that the Cirrus will recover from a spin? I responded to the statement "The business about spinning has been done to death everywhere and there is no evidence I know of that a Cirrus will not recover from a spin." The truth is that there is no evidence that it will recover. Cirrus didn't demonstrate it, certify the aircraft for it, and prohibits it. Therefore, there is no basis to believe that it will. In fact, Cirrus left it for the customer to find out, much like it left the first manned parachute deployment to a landing to an inexperienced customer in the field...because it was never done at the factory or by the test program. Go figure.

In America there is an expression - if you have had a bad day, poor yourself a good glass of wine and mull over who you can sue.

Perhaps that's a european opinion of a saying in the US...one with no foundation. There's no such saying.

That is not to say there may not be merit in the case(s) but it is not relevant to this discussion other than as a distraction unless you care to share the details of the case.

There is merit to the case, fatalities are involved, and I can't discuss it. Not would I choose to do so until it's conclusion. The FAA, among others, is involved.

I can however think of an analogy. Twins are frequently promoted as being "safer" because of the extra engine. The evidence however is that you are more likely to kill yourself in a twin following an engine failure so it is popular to conclude they are not safer. Of course what everyone forgets is if you give a pilot a tool with the intention of reducing fatalaties but the training is inadequate for him to use that tool correctly then dont be surprised when he kills himself. The corrrect conclusion is that a twin is more dangerous than a single unless the pilot receives adequate and recurrent training in which event a twin is "safer"

Twins were never intended to be "safer." The concept of the extra engine is an increase in climb performance, as extra thrust equates to climb performance. Richard Collins spearheaded efforts to convince the flying public of any concept that the extra engine represents "safety" beginning back in the 70's, so that's no new concept, and it's been heavily taught as a potential pilot trap for several decades. The extra engine was never there to "reduce fatalities." It's there to boost performance.

The extra engine, if managed correctly, does exist to provide redundant systems support, from additional hydraulic to additional pneumatic, vacum, and electrical power...and the twin can do something else that the single can't...continue flying for an extended distance after an engine failure. An extra engine often enables a light airplane to carry more, usually a little faster, and to climb higher faster. Like any increase in performance and capability, it also requires additional training and preparation...and recurrent, regular training.

Another is the MU-2. Its accident record is so poor the FAA has mandated additional training. It would be easy to conclude the aircraft is "unsafe". However the FAA after careful analysis of the evidence has had the sense to avoid this conclusion. Rather they have concluded that the aircraft has some characteristics which requires additional training. Since these requirments were introduced there have been no accidents involving the MU-2.

An excellent example, albeit somewhat to the opposite end of the spectrum from the SR20. The MU2 has always been about increased speed and performance, and it's done well for many years in that regard. It's problem, much like the SR20, is that people have been put in the airplane without enough training and experience. The MU-2 can exhibit rapid if not violent characteristics during an engine failure, which the SR-20 does not do, and the MU2 was never produced with nor marketed with a magic panic button to extricate the pilot. Additionally, the MU-2 was produced with some unique control features which can rapidly aggravate the problem when it begins. The intent of the SR20, and it's chief selling point, is that the CAPS system is reputed to solve one's problems once they have begun. Similiar in that they demand some more attention and vigilance, and certainly adequate, proper training. Diametrically opposed in their sales and approach to the pilot community, and in their application, as well as their pitfalls.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I really get conflicted emotions reading this stuff...for fifty five years I had deluded myself in the belief that having more than one engine on an airplane somehow gave me a better safety margin......

......now I read this and my emotions are difficult to describe thinking I had been wrong for all those years.




Twins were never intended to be "safer." The concept of the extra engine is an increase in climb performance, as extra thrust equates to climb performance. Richard Collins spearheaded efforts to convince the flying public of any concept that the extra engine represents "safety" beginning back in the 70's, so that's no new concept, and it's been heavily taught as a potential pilot trap for several decades. The extra engine was never there to "reduce fatalities." It's there to boost performance.


Then my heart slowed down and I have recovered from some of the shock when I read this.

The extra engine, if managed correctly, does exist to provide redundant systems support, from additional hydraulic to additional pneumatic, vacum, and electrical power...and the twin can do something else that the single can't...continue flying for an extended distance after an engine failure. An extra engine often enables a light airplane to carry more, usually a little faster, and to climb higher faster. Like any increase in performance and capability, it also requires additional training and preparation...and recurrent, regular training.


For a brief moment I feared I had been living in a time warp and the several times I spent hours flying to an airport on one engine having feathered and shut down an engine were just my imagination and those flights never happened.

The most rewarding thing about this is the boost to my self confidence I feel knowing that somehow I managed to " manage it correctly " words can not describe my feelings of accomplishment.

[englishal]

Cor! talk about pick the bits out to make me look like a lummox

Sorry, I missed the "if it hadn't been for the......" bit

I don't know what all the fuss about the Cirrus is.....Anyone would think we were discussing the Titanic and not enough life boats. The BRS is just one other option , it could save your life, who knows? I'd like one especially if the wing fell off. The BRS has never killed anyone - bad decisions kill people- but it has saved lives and that is a fact.

There are MANY planes out there not certified for spinning (the 747SP for one - which incidentally hit severe turbulence while the crew were not paying attention if I recall corectly), yet I'd still fly one. Aren't most PA28's, the most common training plane "not certified for spins"? What is the reason for this? It is clearly because someone thinks that if you spin one, you may die.

In 8 years of flying I have yet to a) unintentionally stall and b) inadvertently enter a spin. Even doing some messed up "aerobatics gone wrong" we still didn't spin. I do my best to avoid any unintential "outside of the flight regime" flight, which is what my training was all about. I'm pretty confident that should I be lucky enough to ever own a Cirrus, that I won't enter an unintenional spin.

Unfortunately the USA does have a culture of suing if something happens, mostly because the people who sue know that 9 times out of 10 the company being sued will settle out of court because if they don't they *could* stand to lose 10x that amount and it is not worth the risk or expense of going to court - hot coffee from MacDonalds springs to mind - incidentally at the same time as the "hot coffee" incident (7 mill?) a british chap sued Kellogs over a napalm-hot pop tart which burned him after it came out of the toaster. He won and was awarded £500.

Unfortunately this compensation culture is spreading to the UK fast. When selling shares one of the prospective buyers asked the question "who is responsible if I injure myself in the hangar".....We determined that he was not suitable for the group (in answer: you are).

[Fuji Abound]

Chuck

I really get conflicted emotions reading this stuff...for fifty five years I had deluded myself in the belief that having more than one engine on an airplane somehow gave me a better safety margin......

......now I read this and my emotions are difficult to describe thinking I had been wrong for all those years.

.. .. .. made me chuckle, guess I am with you on this one.

Unfortunately the USA does have a culture of suing if something happens

yep, as I said, had a bad day, look for someone to sue, or so I have been told in the States at least on four occasions by four different people!

Anyways, back to the issue .. .. ..

I guess we have stablished that there is no evidence a Cirrus will recover from a fully established spin, but there is no evidence it will not. In short we dont know either way. There is however evidence that it will almost certainly always recover form an incipient spin using standard recovery techniques.

Nearly all low level spins are fatal. The ability of the aircraft to recover or the deployment of a chute will not help you. Nearly all spins occur at low level.

Recovery from high level spins depend on the ability of the pilot and the aircraft to recover. I have suggested that many pilots would handle a first time spin badly, even if the aircraft was capable of recovering. One could conclude that if the average pilot has not recovered at the incipient stage his chances of survival in any aircraft are already compromised. Cirrus give another option IF conventional and demonstrated recoverability at the incipient stage has failed.

In so far as the chute is concerned there is limited evidence that the chute can result in severe injury due to a failure in deployment or due to the trauma on landing. However, the evidence is that these occurences have been extremelly rare.

We could conclude that the only relevant debate therefore is whether the chute is on balance an enhancement to safety or not.

To make that asessment we have to determine whether the chute has a record of saving more lives than would have been lost.

There is one further aspect. Whether the chute encourages pilots to put themselves in situations they would not otherwise do were it not for the chute.

For example, if you depart at night in a twin, even if you suffer an engine failure it is very unlikely you are going to meet with the ground again until you elect to do so. With a single, chute or not, if the engine fails you will meet the ground earlier than expected. That meeting does not carry with it a guarantee that you will escape uninjured - although the evidence would suggest your chances are reasonable.

Pilots are on the whole not fools. Life is about assessing risk. I know some pilots who would not fly a single over water in the winter without an immersion suit. They realise if they ditch their chances of survival are poor. They equally understand the risk of an engine failure is tiny. One pilot might consider a chute provides sufficient supplementary cover over the risk of an engine failure at night that whilst he wouldnt go without the chute, he would with it. Personally, that would be my assessment.

I think when that choice is taken away from us we should give up.

I also think we need to go on examining and questioning the evidence always. No one has yet come up with an aircraft that is completley safe - I think Cirrus may have a high performance single that is a little safer than most high performance singles in the hands of a well trained pilot.

I would be interested to know if your assessment is different.

[SNS3Guppy]

I guess we have stablished that there is no evidence a Cirrus will recover from a fully established spin, but there is no evidence it will not. In short we dont know either way. There is however evidence that it will almost certainly always recover form an incipient spin using standard recovery techniques.

No, we have evidence that recovery was demonstrated. There is no evidence that it will "certainly always recover." We have evidence that it recovered at least 60 times under test conditions, with a test and demonstration pilot on board, and backed up by a spin recovery parachute. This is not at all the same as, nor evidence of any guarantee. It does not mean the aircraft will "certainly always recover."

Comments. No spin matrix less than that prescribed in AC23-8A or AC23-15, can determine that all configurations are recoverable. It must be assumed that the SR20 has some unrecoverable characteristics. In the SR20 proper execution of recovery control movements is necessary to affect recovery, and aircraft may become unrecoverable with incorrect control inputs.

Both the FAA and Cirrus would appear to disagree with you.

Nearly all spins occur at low level.

Again, per previous commentary, this is not correct.

Pilots are on the whole not fools.

I disagree. The most dangerous component in an airplane is the pilot, and pilot error, often stemming from poor decision making, continues to be by far the number one cause of mishaps and fatalities.

Life is about assessing risk.

Assessing, perhaps. Accepting risk no. A very popular concept is risk management, which by it's very nature entails accepting risk, and accepting risk is unacceptable. Finding and eliminating, accounting for, mitigating, compensating for, removing, and otherwise finding ways to take risk from the picture and NOT accept it, is a proper approach to assessing and handling it.

I know some pilots who would not fly a single over water in the winter without an immersion suit. They realise if they ditch their chances of survival are poor.

An excellent example of a pilot acting foolishly and by virtue of that action, a fool.

One pilot might consider a chute provides sufficient supplementary cover over the risk of an engine failure at night that whilst he wouldnt go without the chute, he would with it. Personally, that would be my assessment.

Most probably the decision of one to whom an engine failure is an academic subject, who has never descended under a parachute, never done so at night, and never experienced an engine failure, day or night.

Some years ago I attended a tanker conference in Reno, Nevada. At that meeting, a representative of the California Department of Forestry stood to give a report on receipt of the new turbine-engine conversions to the CDF S-2 Trackers. Rather than address the added safety provided by the more powerful, more reliable engines, he instead went on about how the airplanes could now fly into deeper holes more impossible places and fly back out.

A standard axiom in that business is that one never begins a drop run unless one can complete it without getting rid of the load. One plans to be able to have a safe exit with an engine failure, with a tank that won't drop, etc. The idea that one has more power and therefore places one's self into more precarious positions flies in the face of safety. What he was describing was the ability to increase risk, rather than have a higher safety margin, and he was in error. Much like electing to make a single engine flight at night because one has a panic button parachute on board.

If one wouldn't make the flight without it, one shouldn't be enticed into doing so with such a carrot dangling ahead.

We have reverse thrust. It can provide shorter stopping distances. However, we don't calculate a rejected takeoff based on it's availablility, nor our stopping distances. It's an added safety tool, but we don't take it for granted, and any use thereof is considered a bonus. If we can't do what we need to do without it, we don't do it. The recovery parachute should be the same way; it should NOT factor into your decision to undertake a given flight or operation.

[IO540]

Much like electing to make a single engine flight at night because one has a panic button parachute on board.

I am not feeding this thread anymore.

Why not ban seat belts in cars and have an 8" steel spike in the middle of the steering wheel. It would improve the general standard of driving dramatically.

[SNS3Guppy]

It would?

Really?