In the US, the FAA approved the SR series with a condensed stall/spin program, relying on a ‘equivalent level of safety’ ELOS option. This determination hinged on the parachute’s presence and its use for spin recovery, relieving Cirrus from demonstrating alternative recovery methods. However, European aviation safety authorities rejected this approach, mandating Cirrus to prove spin recoveries through a more comprehensive testing program. As it turns out, the plane can recover from spins using the same inputs as any other aircraft.
What is happening?
Compare price of a new SR22 in 2006 to a new one today. Same goes for parts overall and CAPS replacement.
arj1 wrote:
And CS-23 clearly says the spin-exit characteristics that aircraft must demonstrate during the certification.
That’s actually an AMC and not a strict requirement. It should be possible to certify an aircraft with unrecoverable spin characteristics if it has a BRS.
Airborne_Again wrote:
And CS-23 clearly says the spin-exit characteristics that aircraft must demonstrate during the certification.That’s actually an AMC and not a strict requirement. It should be possible to certify an aircraft with unrecoverable spin characteristics if it has a BRS.
Yes, if the regulator agrees…
Why would a BRS repack cost so much for a Cirrus when a parachute test and repack for a ULM (even a BRS system) costs much less than that?
Regarding spins; many modern aircraft are very difficult to spin, however hard you try, unless you have accepted that you are going to need a new aircraft.
the plane can recover from spins using the same inputs as any other aircraft.
The question is: How much altitude required to recover?
another words is the “traditional method” practicable?
genuinely curious
From my days as a Cirrus owner / operator and as far as I can recall, the initial approach of Cirrus was to make the aircraft spin-resistant – eg, the cuffed wing which means the ailerons are still flying when the inner portion of the wing has stalled. However, when a spin-resistant aircraft enters a spin, then it is difficult to recover. FAA required spin recovery within a certain number of spins – 1 or 2, once recovery input controls were applied. Cirrus did it in 3.
So, do they make a plane spin-resistant or accept it can spin, but will recover quickly? Hence the parachute was integrated as an alternative means of compliance with the FAA mandate.
EASA doesn’t set a maximum number of revolutions within which an aircraft must be recoverable with the correct inputs and they refused to accept the alternative means of compliance hence the SR 20 was spin tested. With conventional inputs – power idle – wings level – stick full forward – rudder against the direction of spin – the aircraft will recover.
So, theoretically EASA could have certified a Cirrus without a chute but that would have meant offering a plane for US and Europe – the first SR 20 sent for certification in europe had the BRS, which, let’s not forget, is heavy. removing that weight would have required a re-certification. Maybe someone, some day, will ask EASA for an STC to remove the chute, demonstrating its performance in Europe without it – then sell the STC to recoup their costs????
I can imagine this will get more lucrative as the BRS suppliers continuously ramp up their obscene costs…..
Aerobatic designs such as Extra and Sukhoi products are, of course, tested and certified for spins – but mainstream general aviation four-seat designs such as Cirrus, Cessna (182, 350/400), Diamond, Piper etc. are not certified for spins. Few 4-seat designs have ever been certified for spins.
This is a very clever and I’m sure deliberate confusion of two things: spin testing, and spin certification. All single-engine aircraft have to be able to recover from a single turn spin, in a conventional way. Whereas – as they say – very few are certified to be spun. I never tried to spin my 182, though I’m assured they recover very nicely.
For most pilots recognizing the early stages of a spin, or recovering a developed spin, is unlikely in any kind of airplane.
I don’t buy this. I had an incipient spin in a 172 when I was still a student (power-on stall recovery gone wrong, while soloing). For about a quarter of a second I thought “I’m going to die”. Then I did a PARE recovery and it recovered instantly. I don’t claim to be an especially gifted pilot, so I’m sure others could/would do the same.
I’m not against the chute – for sure there are situations where it will save your life. But these arguments are specious.
Why would a BRS repack cost so much for a Cirrus when a parachute test and repack for a ULM (even a BRS system) costs much less than that?
Simple answer. The BRS of Cirrus is certified, much bigger (1542/1633kg) and distributed by Cirrus, which is (like pretty much all manufacturers) not exactly known for bargain pricing.
To compare it with UL/microlight prices is pointless. It’s a different world.
It’s roughly 15 kEUR (depending on US exchange rate) for a G2 at a Cirrus Service Center in Europe. There are various differences between models and also depends on when it was last replaced (updated rocket ignition etc). The CAPS system can be seen as an additional insurance @1500 EUR/year for an out. One of the Klapmeier‘s had a mid air collision and this is the reason for the CAPS in the Cirrus.
