It is anecdotal, but I have noticed lately at KSMO some seriously inept Cirrus drivers -- one guy talking on the radio, trying to get a landing clearance so terrified and confused it was freaky, and another guy driving too fast onto the taxi-way without calling ground almost wildly turning into me as I was taxiing. He wasn't on any KSMO freq, and looked miffed as he careened into the area between the runway and taxiway. I was also 6 miles out from KCMA and a Cirrus driver called up with the ATIS and CMA asked him where he was, he says ten out, then blows by me way too close, never saw me, or maybe he did. Just a week of anecdotes.

I would say there are certainly many serious pilots flying these things, but there are alot of turkeys also.

OK, Ill bite....

At Arlington the other day I was in the Baron, I was at the run-up area for RW 16 doing my run-up. A Bonanza taxi's past the run up area and sits number 2 behind a Seminole. I get the run-up complete and taxi behind the Bo, you guessed it, he does a run-up with me behind him.

I was embarrassed for him, and it hurt my pride because I have a lot of respect for Bo drivers. If it was a Cessna, I could understand, but a Bonanza driver???? WTF???

Man I hope no one hear makes a practice of that.

I'm not sure you can realistically make a statement about a pilot and his skills/values based on the "brand" airplane he flies.

+ 1
for sure...

The data since certification would indicate that the safety record of the type isn't any better than the legacy airframes and that motivated pilots will manage to fly the 'spin resistant' Cirrus wing right into unrecoverable situations at low altitudes.

Here's a spin from late last year - not in the traffic pattern. I suppose it's just as easy to spin in the traffic pattern as it is anywhere else. Were these guys practicing stalls? Very sad outcome.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_ ... 169&akey=1

George I think you should change your middle name to "Data". I'd also like to see you as the star character in a "Where's the Data" spoof on the old "Where's the Beef" commercials, this time with a Grampa rather than Gramma.


I can't speak from personal experience but I have read everything I could find on the subject and AFaIK the answer is "Not very well". I do know that a number of planes and crews were lost in Barons or the military equivalent (T-42) because the pilots were unable to recover from the spins they inadvertently entered while practicing slow flight with asymmetrical thrust (aka VMC demo). I also read a harrowing tale of a spinning Baron whose pilots pulled off a last second recovery having spun through several thousand feet of altitude and they tried several techniques including opposite asymmetrical thrust (which only managed to reverse the spin direction).

I suspect that part of the issue is that the disruption of airflow over a substantial portion of the wings (and potentially including the tail) from the windmilling props may be a contributing factor and believe that it might be prudent to pull the prop controls and crack the throttles on both engines just enough to achieve near zero and equal thrust when attempting a recovery (along with ailerons into the spin and the other standard control positions). I also wish I knew what if any (hopefully positive) effect VGs would have on such an attempt. That said, even though I have a fair amount of spin experience in other airplanes and VGs on my I'm rather reluctant to test any of these theories with a deliberate spin in my B55.

And finally in reference to the spin characteristics of a Cirrus, I fail to see why an experienced pilot (in a SR22 or B55) should ever manage to inadvertently spin one. I don't see that corner of the envelope being any more difficult to avoid than excess G force or airspeed beyond Vne, neither of which are guaranteed to be recoverable in most airplanes.

Here's what Beech had to say on the topic many years ago:
http://www.goodflying.com/Multi/SC147.pdf

I had this discussion a while ago, only 3 of the reports I pulled at the time mentioned 'spin', plenty of departures from controlled flight at various altitudes from short final to 5000ft:

- Crystal, MN (stall and impact on go-around)
- Orlando, FL (unrecovered spin from 3000+ ft while practicing slow-flight)
- Moncks Corner, SC (spontaneous pitch-down and nose-in on short-final)
- Waxhaw,NC (stall and impact from 800ft)
- Lindsay,OK ( snap-roll on final)
- Faribault,MN (4 dead stall, loss of control during go-around)
- Indianapolis (1 fatal 3 injured under CAPS after spin from 4000ft)
- Annapolis,MD (1 fatal, stall, loss of control during go-around)
- Lancaster, CA (spin during power-off 180 maneuvers)
- Park Falls, WI (stall from pattern altitude)
- Greenwood,SC (stall and roll during climbout)
- Parish, NY (flat-spin from 5000ft while practicing power-off stalls)

The majority of the remaining fatal accidents fall under the general 'VFR into IMC', 'encounter with icing', CFIT and 'misc. acts of boneheaded knuckleheadedness' category and as such are easily avoidable for the careful pilot.
But just looking at the loss of control accidents listed above (which purposefully excludes the various 'lost it in IMC' accidents), I think the 'data' does not support the idea that
A. The Cirrus is spin-resistant in the real world (3 fatal spin accidents)
B. The Cirrus has benign stall characteristics under real-life conditions.

Yes, during the FAA approved stall series, the behaviour is apparently pretty benign. Under real-life conditions when the mind is fixated on a go-around or some malfunctioning piece of avionics, the stall leads to swift loss of control and either impact with the ground, or a spiral/spin/flatspin sequence if sufficient altitude for that is present.

Particularly troubling are the accidents that involved stall or slow-flight training and ended with a spin. Some of them happened with CFIs on board who presumably had undergone upset training at some point in their flying career and should have been able to get the plane recovered (if it is indeed recoverable).

Just for anyone who hasn't seen it.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/CAwET3Q9Og4[/youtube]

Yes, this test-pilot initiated the spin intentionally, the way how this plane goes from nose up to near inverted is still impressive.

Sheesh, I sound like Yves......

Well that was exciting!

Looked like an average to maybe mellower than average spin entry in a Beech T34B. Don't know but suspect a typical Bo would be about the same.

Steve

I've never been able to understand why so many pilots of other types of airplanes try to find negative things to say about the Cirrus.

All of these anecdotes about allegedly bad Cirrus pilot behavior, the unfounded claims of "failed" FAA spin testing, reciting accident locations and rumors, and just general negatively slanted statements...... what is it that drives all this?

If you have the plane you love, that's great. I have mine, too.

However, there are thousands of Cirrus owners who feel just as much love toward their planes as the Bonanza and Baron owners here feel toward theirs. They make the same mistakes, have the same types of crashes, fly into the same bad weather, and do the same stupid pilot tricks.......no matter which type of airplane they have.

I say: enjoy the plane you have, but life is too short to be going around bashing fellow pilots and plane owners. Let's all just get over it. Sheeeeesh!

I don't think I'm bashing any owners or fellow pilots. I'll gleefully bash a company that is trying to bullshit me with their offensively stupid marketing material about once every other month. I find their claims that there is something fundamentally different about their product compared with legacy aircraft unfounded and there is certainly the data to demonstrate this. Their product follows the same laws of physics, aerodynamics and engineering as all the other bugsmashers on the market. And no amount of marketing babble can hide the fact that NASA designed profile or not, if you fly to slow the ground will rise up and smite you.

With all the safety features, advanced wing design, electronically piped in 'situational awareness' and airframe parachute, the safety record of the type should be head and shoulders above everything else in the market. The data however shows that their accident record is about the same as the remainder of the fleet and significantly worse than some competitors like the strut-wing Cessnas or Mooneys.

Florian,
I wasn't necessarily addressing my comments toward you, and I think our positions are actually fairly close.

I contend that pilots kill themselves and their airplanes on a consistent basis, no matter what type the airplane is, and that one can love nearly any type of airplane. There was a lot of Cirrus pilot and plane bashing in this thread; however, your comments did not seem like bashing to me.

By the way, quite a few souls have been "saved" by the parachute. However, there is a constant, ongoing debate within the Cirrus community (and elsewhere) about which parachute deployments were "righteous" and which ones were premature and could have had a non-accident outcome if the pilot would have tried to save it... >>>>More questions with no real answers...

As far as the "offensively stupid marketing material", you must have somehow gotten yourself on their list! I owned an SR22 until 2 years ago, and they don't send me that stuff!

Ooh, don't get me started....



They match certain professional licenses with the FAA pilot license records to filter out easy marks. This is all stuff you can buy from places like wellpoint.

That's a cool video! Not sure what plane it is though as it has the wrong rear windows for a production SR. It must be an early test plane with 3 small windows in the back.