Bill,

This has been hashed over around here for years.

They did not do official spin testing in the USA, as they were allowed to use the chute as an ELOS, and they do recommend activating the chute for spins. As I said, Europe did do the testing for their certification over there.

Frankly, since the most common spin is at low and slow places like traffic patterns, a quick activation of the parachute is probably most pilots' only chance of living. We all like to think that we can recover from a spin, but we know in real life that it is unlikely.

Cirrus did not lose a plane doing spin testing. I do believe I recall a crash during early test flying and they lost a test pilot.

Todd not to argue, but my vote is a 56TC, next is a Colemill E55 . . .

If I were to sell my 35 that's where I'd go next. . .

No chute . . . Jesus didn't Tap Out.

The reason fewer Cirrus pilots are dying the past couple years (since your old Av Con stats) is probably because they are using the chute more often and training to do so when needed.

Now, one can argue that they're not "good pilots." Hogwash.

The penalty for making a bad pilot mistake should not be death.....as it is in most of our planes.

Arlen, you have not answered my question about what spin recovery method, if any is in the Cirrus ops manual.

And you admit they had a fatal accident during testing though you don't give the cause.

And you admit Cirrus has not met the U S standards for spin recovery as most other planes like Cessnas have.

Let's give Cirrus their due for good marketing and the parachute, but don't claim they are something not proven by facts.

Finally, if they really have had 8 parachute pulls just this year don't you think that sounds high? I'd guess if you put all the U S acro planes and warbird planes together, types which usually carry pilot parachutes, that you will not find 8 pilots who have bailed out, this year.

Bill,

Did you read what I wrote?

I did answer as much as I can. Do some of your own research, or believe me and many other current or former owners here -- your choice.

The comparison should be with pilots who made a smoking hole in the earth.

I read what you wrote, including, "now one can argue that they are not good pilots". Those are not my words, nowhere did I write anything about lack of good pilots in Cirrus. That is one theory proposed by some for the higher Cirrus accidents, but not shown by facts according to one site, the old Leighton Collins site, I think maybe called avweb. They say the average fatal Cirrus accident pilot had 1312 hours total and 249 in type, so hardly beginner pilots.

And by the way since you list RV-6 with your name, will an RV-6 recover from a spin with normal control inputs like opposite rudder, and is a normal recovery short of a parachute given in the manual?

Bill,

If Cirrus did not meet the FAA standards then it would not have been certified. Sorry. Your logic fails at step one. You did not pass go.

In terms of Aviation Consumer, go back and read the article. Pilots were killing the planes, and for Cirrus aircraft with all the emphasis on technology to assist in safety there was no difference between Cirrus and other models. The fundamental conclusion, pilots still kill aircraft and pilots were not using the safety features (e.g. why so few pulls compared to number of accidents).

Around the time of the article, COPA and Cirrus made a massive change and emphasis on training. (I have no idea if there is any linkage.) The emphasis and training has paid off with incredible safety stats for Cirrus which now rival Diamond as the safest airplane in the sky.

As for the rest of your chest beating, I think it is time to tap out and give someone else a turn.

Tim

Bill - you've mentioned this a number of times, now. Bonanzas - JUST Bonanza's, have had 11 incidents this year - several fatal. Cirrus has had no fatal and 8 pulls.

Check out the number of planes in the IFR system at any time. There are more Cirrus. How come there are less Cirrus incidents and no fatalities listed?

Nate, Arlen, good posts, very interesting.

Tim , Cirrus did not meet the U S standards FOR SPIN RECOVERY, just as I wrote. If you have some factual proof that they did, let's read it. Av Consumer says they did not. Cirrus received a waiver, if that is the correct term, to certify the plane without meeting the U S standards for spin recovery, apparently because of the chute.

And your rudeness doesn't change those facts.

Bill,

As I wrote earlier (and you said you read), they chose to not do spin testing and spin certification in the USA, as the parachute was considered an ELOS and allowed certification that way. The Europeans DID do spin testing and certified the plane.

As far as my RV-6 goes, the previous owner did spins; I have not.

You know, what you can't argue is how many planes Cirrus is selling and how many Beech, Piper, Cessna, etc are selling. The Cirrus sells because it does 170 knots on 13 GPH, known icing, and a parachute that saves lives. It is a modern design that feels like an expensive luxury sedan inside instead of a 50-year-old Chevy with a modern interior. Bonanzas are wonderful planes. They fly and handle great, but if Beech does not come up with something new their days are numbered. The Cirrus makes sense.

Also, who really cares if the plane will recover from a spin if it has a parachute? I could care less if it will recover at all because I do not spin airplanes. If you spin a plane unintentially you are a piss poor pilot and will end up dead regardless of the plane's ability to recover from a spin.

Tim, stop being rude!!!