|
This is why Cirruses are so dangerous I flew a SR22 in my previous job and have probably 700 hours in the thing - getting a "feel" for them is not an issue whatsoever. For some odd reason people are terrified of doing slow flight and stalls in them, but I've done 45 degree banked steep turns in slow flight with substantial aerodynamic buffet and had no problem feeling out where "the edge" of stall was by the seat of my pants. Additionally, just like any airplane if you keep the "ball centered" it breaks in a stall benignly with little to no wing drop tendency. The single biggest driver of Cirrus accidents is the aeronautical decisionmaking of the people driving the damn things... |
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
(Post 1918993)
Cirruses are NOT dangerous.
I flew a SR22 in my previous job and have probably 700 hours in the thing - getting a "feel" for them is not an issue whatsoever. For some odd reason people are terrified of doing slow flight and stalls in them, but I've done 45 degree banked steep turns in slow flight with substantial aerodynamic buffet and had no problem feeling out where "the edge" of stall was by the seat of my pants. Additionally, just like any airplane if you keep the "ball centered" it breaks in a stall benignly with little to no wing drop tendency. The single biggest driver of Cirrus accidents is the aeronautical decisionmaking of the people driving the damn things... Read this: http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...20100510X11536 or this: www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20090218X62344 or this: www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20080206X00142 or this: www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20020502X00613 and there is a common theme, spun in by students and instructors alike. Prompt anti-spin inputs in a C172 or C182 will abort any spin, but Cirruses can and do snap roll into the ground. They should be flown in a significantly different manner accordingly. They can probably be used for primary training in a part 141 type program, but if you have students putting in opposite aileron, like this, well, I'd want to be in a 152. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKIk-dqml6U If you are interested, read a great article by Landsberg (ASF) back when the Cirrus was being approved, as the handling characteristics were being explored and some of this was predicted, as the Cirrus is far from "spin resistant." Spinning In - AOPA According to Stough and DiCarlo, "Both the Cirrus and Lancair were certified using spin-resistance certification standards; however, neither was certified as fully spin resistant." Cirrus, which had already made the decision to include a standard parachute system to solve other safety problems, proposed this as an equivalent level of safety. If the pilot somehow managed to get beyond the enhanced stall characteristics and into a spin, there was a way to escape. |
From the Cirrus Pilot Entertainment Handbook:
Abnormal Procedures: Spin...........................Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Stall...........................Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS parachute Severe Turbulence........Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Cruise Flight................Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Engine Failure..............Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Smoke in Cockpit.........Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Smoke in Distance.......Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Moderate Turbulence....Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Bee in Cockpit.............Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Hangnail.....................Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Mild Turbulence............Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Shellfish Allergy...........Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Month of May...............Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Visible Moisture............Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute No Turbulence..............Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Night Operations..........Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Crosswinds..................Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Irate Passenger............Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Low Fuel Warning.........Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Flight Over Water.........Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Flight over Mountains...Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Airspeed >80 KIAS......Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Instrument Conditions..Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Psoriasis.....................Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Flight Over Grass.........Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Halitosis.....................Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute When in Doubt............Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Cockpit Fire................Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute CAPS Parachute Fire....Kiss Ass Goodbye |
LOL I fixed it for you.
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
(Post 1919084)
From the Cirrus Pilot Entertainment Handbook:
Abnormal Procedures: Spin...........................Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Stall...........................Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS parachute Severe Turbulence........Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Cruise Flight................Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Engine Failure..............Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Smoke in Cockpit.........Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Smoke in Distance.......Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Moderate Turbulence....Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Bee in Cockpit.............Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Hangnail.....................Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Mild Turbulence............Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Shellfish Allergy...........Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Month of May...............Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Visible Moisture............Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute No Turbulence..............Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Night Operations..........Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Crosswinds..................Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Irate Passenger............Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Dysmenorrhea..............See Previous Instruction Low Fuel Warning.........Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Flight Over Water.........Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Flight over Mountains...Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Airspeed >80 KIAS......Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Instrument Conditions..Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Psoriasis.....................Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Priapism.....................Pull HANDLE, deploy CAPS Parachute Flight Over Grass.........Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Halitosis.....................Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute When in Doubt............Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute Cockpit Fire................Pull Handle, Deploy CAPS Parachute CAPS Parachute Fire....Kiss Ass Goodbye |
Here's a few more Cirrus variations if you're not convinced, from a quick NTSB search I did last night looking at a 2 year inquiry period.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...20080324X00369 Data extracted from the onboard global positioning system revealed that the airplane's last altitude was 838 feet; vertical speed was down -444 feet per minute, indicated airspeed was 60.3 knots, with a pitch attitude of up 4.98 degrees and a left roll of -31.73 degrees. These parameters indicate the airplane had or was about to enter the early phase of an aerodynamic stall. The commercial pilot flight instructor and a commercial pilot receiving instruction departed from Orlando Sanford International Airport on an instructional flight. Approximately 30-40 minutes later witnesses reported seeing the nose of the airplane pitch down vertically and the airplane start to spin. The witnesses added that, just before the airplane disappeared below a tree line, a parachute deployed but did not inflate. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Witness reports and findings from the wreckage examination are consistent with a loss of control and subsequent aerodynamic stall and spin. In fact, I might even want an AOA gauge if I flew a plane with the SR22's airfoil, (much as I would want one if I flew an F-16 or an A320.) But, I don't, so I don't. ;) |
Use your feet to maintain coordinated flight and you don't have to worry about spins.
Posting a number of training-related and base-to-final stall/spin accidents, which are still far too common and not exclusive to one type of aircraft, doesn't remotely prove that it is an "unsafe" design. It certainly is a high performance SE piston and as such isn't as forgiving as other less capable airframes...but "dangerous"? Absolutely not. |
As BoilerUP said, the SR-22 is not unsafe. The reason people view it as dangerous is because there are a lot of them and therefore there are a lot of accidents. If Cessna sold a similar amount of Cessna 400s, I bet people would think that was a dangerous plane too.
|
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
(Post 1919599)
It certainly is a high performance SE piston and as such isn't as forgiving as other less capable airframes...but "dangerous"? Absolutely not.
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
(Post 1919643)
The reason people view it as dangerous is because there are a lot of them and therefore there are a lot of accidents. If Cessna sold a similar amount of Cessna 400s, I bet people would think that was a dangerous plane too.
You might be able to argue the "type" of person that flies each plane is different (e.g. a lot of doctors / dentists / lawyers buy Cirruses but only flight professionals or true enthusiasts would shell out the higher $$$ for a columbia/cessna 400, and they are more interested in flying and thus safer.) Also perhaps 400's are not used for training while a lot of Cirrus are. |
Originally Posted by cardiomd
(Post 191958)
Despite this I like the plane. I very nearly bought one, and they are much more affordable than even a new Cessna 182 (SR20 is half the price). However, I like the joy of flight too much to fly the spring-loaded plane that needs to be operated in such a fashion - again, I would not "have fun" or explore the envelope in this plane. It is a high performance transport craft and should be respected as such.
In fact, I might even want an AOA gauge if I flew a plane with the SR22's airfoil, (much as I would want one if I flew an F-16 or an A320.) But, I don't, so I don't. ;) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tWAYBjqwU80 Maybe it is because they have an AOA gauge that they can do this so successfully? :D |
General Chuck Yeager eloquently summarizes the AOA indicator use:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y73tnUn6ETY Starts at 54 seconds into video. ;) |
Originally Posted by cardiomd
(Post 1947609)
General Chuck Yeager eloquently summarizes the AOA indicator use:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y73tnUn6ETY Starts at 54 seconds into video. ;) He looks too young to be senile. :D |
If the next conflict is decided by landings on carriers, I'm all in on the USN, maybe even the USMC. :D:D :p
GF PS, it's an old joke |
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
(Post 1947628)
If the next conflict is decided by landings on carriers, I'm all in on the USN, maybe even the USMC. :D:D :p
GF PS, it's an old joke "The next time the winner of a war is determined by how well you can land on a boat, US Navy pilots are really going to kick ass. Until then, it only matters how well you can fight." |
Chuck reiterates the spirit of a good aviator, who flies the plane and does not look for simple crutches to save him from what he should already know. From a post of mine awhile back:
Originally Posted by cardiomd
(Post 1763420)
I agree, if somebody is going to stall/spin then they probably should not be flying. It would just be one more gauge to ignore while yanking back on the yoke.
Another excellent recent article by the always reasonable Dick Collins: Smoke and flames report - is the GA safety picture changing? - Air Facts Journal Maybe if the stall warning were renamed the AOA warning perhaps the near-hysteria among government folks and some safety mavens about AOA would go away. When my father started AIR FACTS in 1938, stall/spin accidents were the safety subject of the day. They still are and that will likely remain true for a long time. The accidents of today bear a great similarity to the ones of 77 years ago and I honestly can’t read the accident reports and identify many, if any, accidents that more complete AOA instrumentation would have prevented. If a pilot can’t get the message from the airspeed, from feel of the airplane, from the look of what is going on, and from the bleat of a stall horn, how can another gauge on the instrument panel help? |
Originally Posted by cardiomd
(Post 1947704)
Chuck reiterates the spirit of a good aviator, who flies the plane and does not look for simple crutches to save him from what he should already know. From a post of mine awhile back:
Not many GA pilots land on carrier decks (BTW which could easily be done in my 182 without an AOA gauge). ;) Another excellent recent article by the always reasonable Dick Collins: Smoke and flames report - is the GA safety picture changing? - Air Facts Journal Just keep coming back and showing your butt. |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 1947711)
Wow....you really do believe you know everything don't you doc?
Just keep coming back and showing your butt. It's just a joke, I looked up the carrier length and it is far longer than the ground roll of a 182. It would be a fun trick for somebody to do sometime. :cool: Sorry you felt threatened. This was just a humorous response to you saying that GA guys need AOA gauges, then retorting that Chuck only thinks he doesn't need one because he doesn't land on carriers. |
I'd really like to watch Doc try to land his 182 on a carrier...at night during blue water ops with a pitching deck in bad Wx. Easy peezy, right doc?? You can do it, hotshot. No sweat. Heck, we should start calling you Maverick. :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by cardiomd
(Post 1947756)
This was just a humorous response to you saying that GA guys need AOA gauges, then retorting that Chuck only thinks he doesn't need one because he doesn't land on carriers.
Didn't he also fly with a broken arm? Some of the stuff going on during those days isn't exactly what you'd want to brag about when you are concerned about safety... |
I don't think he's an a-hole. He means well; he just doesn't know enough to know what he doesn't know. It gets a little annoying sometimes when he tries to lecture professionals about their profession, but beyond that he is pretty harmless.https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4019/4...491d28bc_b.jpg
|
Originally Posted by cardiomd
(Post 1947756)
USMC, lighten up, it is good for you. Seriously. :rolleyes:
It's just a joke, I looked up the carrier length and it is far longer than the ground roll of a 182. It would be a fun trick for somebody to do sometime. :cool: Sorry you felt threatened. This was just a humorous response to you saying that GA guys need AOA gauges, then retorting that Chuck only thinks he doesn't need one because he doesn't land on carriers. Now threatened is an interesting word for you to use. I promise doc that I do not lose any sleep over your feelings of the uselessness of an AoA gauge in general aviation cockpits. Hetman - I don't think JNB was calling Doc names - but commenting on the reputation of Yeager. :) |
Oh, yeah. Nyeeer! Right over my head.
Statement still stands. |
"Not many GA pilots land on carrier decks (BTW which could easily be done in my 182 without an AOA gauge)."
Ok. Might go like this then: Paddles: In the Groove, call the ball. CessnaAce: Negative Ball. AOA disabled. No further call-outs necessary…harrumph! Paddles: Rog. CessnaAce: Paddles be advised; I’m gonna catch the 3 with my left wheel fairing, perform a 180, and will be ready for immediate launch on Cat1. Please clear the deck. Paddles: Roger. Will have Tower instruct pattern aircraft go Delta Clean. Meanwhile: (LSO’s all huddled up slapping each other’s backs with big proud smiles) That’s our Ace! :D |
Originally Posted by SayAlt
(Post 1947766)
I'd really like to watch Doc try to land his 182 on a carrier...at night during blue water ops with a pitching deck in bad Wx. Easy peezy, right doc?? You can do it, hotshot. No sweat. Heck, we should start calling you Maverick. :rolleyes:
A South Vietnamese Air Force Officer Was Responsible for One of the Craziest Carrier Landings of All Time | The Tactical Air Network. Video of the event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so9XRUbBGj8 Don't feel threatened, big guy Alt. I'd bet a lot of pros here wouldn't take my bird into a 1400 foot field. A little practice and they all could. It's a different skill. We can all be aviators, right? :rolleyes:
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
(Post 1947789)
If I'm not mistaken, he's kind of known for being an a-hole.
Didn't he also fly with a broken arm? Some of the stuff going on during those days isn't exactly what you'd want to brag about when you are concerned about safety... |
Originally Posted by Hetman
(Post 1947816)
I don't think he's an a-hole. He means well; he just doesn't know enough to know what he doesn't know. It gets a little annoying sometimes when he tries to lecture professionals about their profession, but beyond that he is pretty harmless.
Don't make me give you a lecture about proper respect. :D |
Originally Posted by cardiomd
(Post 1962674)
Often people's "feats" don't really align with expectations of their gallantry. RIP Neil Armstrong, but a lot of people have written that he was a jerk too. :(
|
Originally Posted by tomgoodman
(Post 1962718)
I think he just wanted privacy, which some people interpreted as a snub. We imagine that famous people have a "duty" to be outgoing and talkative, as our reward for admiring them. :rolleyes:
Armstrong was supposedly a nice guy and humble, but wanted to live a quiet life, not signing autographs all the time. |
Originally Posted by cardiomd
(Post 1962674)
Don't feel threatened, Alt. |
Originally Posted by tomgoodman
(Post 1962718)
I think he just wanted privacy, which some people interpreted as a snub. ̶W̶e̶ Some folks imagine that famous people have a "duty" to be outgoing and talkative, as ̶o̶u̶r̶ their reward for admiring them. :rolleyes:
This. Fixed. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 1962833)
Yeager is a jerk.
|
When Glamorous Glennis died, he remarried.
It appears Yeager is the only person who likes her. His own kids filed a lawsuit against him, because she was blocking the estate (for herself, of course). Different Long story short: 30 years ago, my squadron invited Yeager to be a guest speaker at a dinner. He wanted $2000 plus transportation. :eek: By chance, we ran into Yeager's old squadron mate Bud Anderson. Anderson did it for the price of a steak dinner at the O-club. :cool: I had just finished reading "The Right Stuff." Yeager went from Hero to Zero. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 1962833)
Yeager is a jerk.
Armstrong was supposedly a nice guy and humble, but wanted to live a quiet life, not signing autographs all the time. Not saying the public "owns" him, but he should expect notoriety and be pleasant about it. Many people I know say he was just a cold a-hole if you weren't viewed as important to him or just wanted to shake his hand or get a signature. Big contrast to Buzz and Collins.
Originally Posted by SayAlt
(Post 1962841)
OK I'll try not to, Doc. I just hope you realize how much your super-baaaad Chuck Norris-like 182 skills are so terribly intimidating to naval aviators, much less any other professional pilots.
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
(Post 1963019)
When Glamorous Glennis died, he remarried.
It appears Yeager is the only person who likes her. His own kids filed a lawsuit against him, because she was blocking the estate (for herself, of course). Different Long story short: 30 years ago, my squadron invited Yeager to be a guest speaker at a dinner. He wanted $2000 plus transportation. By chance, we ran into Yeager's old squadron mate Bud Anderson. Anderson did it for the price of a steak dinner at the O-club. :cool: I had just finished reading "The Right Stuff." Yeager went from Hero to Zero. |
Returning to AOA information. More from Dick Collins from Flying/AOPA a few days ago in "Air Facts":
It truly bothers me to see angle of attack instrumentation presented as some new device that will save your butt. It is old and like other devices it gives information about something that can be easily managed without the device. I hasten to add that the importance of angle of attack management is not stressed nearly enough in training and testing. You can’t buy safety, you have to learn it. It has to become a state of mind. One more thought on angle of attack: It has been suggested that having the instrumentation enables safe flight closer to the edges of the envelope. To me, anything that pushes pilots closer to the edges of the envelope doesn’t decrease risk, it increases risk.
Originally Posted by cardiomd
(Post 1767602)
I'm not negative about AOA at all, and I understand it well. I'm just not a fanatic about proselytizing its use for all GA aircraft. It is bordering on crazytown.
I still don't see exactly how you will think it is used on a routine GA flight, or how you estimate the advantages outweigh the costs of install that others have pointed out. The last thing a pilot needs is another gauge that sits there in the green arc, as rickair and I pointed out, I already know I'm within the envelope. We are not fighter pilots on verge of accelerated stalls, nor airliners near the coffin corner.
Originally Posted by cardiomd
(Post 1763420)
I agree, if somebody is going to stall/spin then they probably should not be flying. It would just be one more gauge to ignore while yanking back on the yoke.
|
|
I don't think having an AOA gauge would allow you to "push the envelope." It merely shows you what the wing is doing. I don't think having a guage that will accurately indicate L/D max, minimum controllable airspeed, and an exact approach speed at any weight, configuration, or G-load is risky.
|
Never used an AoA indicator. Would like to have one installed just to watch & see what it does. Pitch Limit Indicators, sure appreciate having those.
|
Originally Posted by METO Guido
(Post 1979010)
Never used an AoA indicator. Would like to have one installed just to watch & see what it does. Pitch Limit Indicators, sure appreciate having those.
Pitch is not the same as AoA (except on TO roll). |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 1979444)
Pitch is not the same as AoA (except on TO roll).
Either one of those assumes the wing has an angle of incidence of zero in relation to the longitudinal axis (pitch reference) of the aircraft. If the wing was mounted on the fuselage with a positive 2 degree angle of incidence, when it rotated to 5 degrees of pitch on takeoff roll, AOA would be 7. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 1979444)
Pitch is not the same as AoA (except on TO roll).
|
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
(Post 1979529)
Lots of assumptions in play there. However, if you're going to say that, then wouldn't you have to include level flight as well?
Either one of those assumes the wing has an angle of incidence of zero in relation to the longitudinal axis (pitch reference) of the aircraft. If the wing was mounted on the fuselage with a positive 2 degree angle of incidence, when it rotated to 5 degrees of pitch on takeoff roll, AOA would be 7. The TO roll is the only time you know for certain that pitch = AoA (or AoA - AoI if applicable). In flight you can make some reasonable assumptions in certain phases, but those AF447 guys obviously had a huge delta between what they thought pitch was telling them about AoA, and what AoA was really doing. |
Originally Posted by METO Guido
(Post 1979586)
You well know contact with the PLI activates the shaker.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:47 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands