Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
larshjort
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:54 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:00 pm

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 49):
OK

So you thrust your mechanic completely, that he will maintain your 40 years old cessna that spent most of time outside?

If he don't he should find another. The mechanic is legally responsible for whatever he does on the aircraft.

/Lars
139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5728
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:37 pm

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 49):
So you thrust your mechanic completely, that he will maintain your 40 years old cessna that spent most of time outside?

No, when I had an over-40 year old Cessna (that lived in a hangar most of the time I had it) I performed all of the maintenance myself (including overhauling the engine) under an A & P's supervision. Any owner of an older aircraft should be familiar with what happens to it, and even if they do not participate in the maintenance they should be more aware than simply to take it in once a year for an annual and pay the bill. When I was running the airport either my mechanic or I would go over with the owner before and after the annual as to what was wrong with the airplane, and what we found on the annual. We expected the owner to know his airplane, and most of them did.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3508
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:29 pm

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 49):
OK

So you thrust your mechanic completely, that he will maintain your 40 years old cessna that spent most of time outside?

So why aren't you complaining about the lack of airframe parachutes on Delta's DC-9's, because they are just as old. Maintenance certification isn't any different between the two either.

And honestly, I trust many local mechanics with the older Cessna airplanes more than I'd trust them with the Cirrus airplanes. Honestly, the simplicity of working on them is a big difference. Some of the stuff on the SR-20/22 is crazy, as to things that have to be done (specifically the parachute repack).

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
User avatar
larshjort
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:54 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:44 pm

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 52):
And honestly, I trust many local mechanics with the older Cessna airplanes more than I'd trust them with the Cirrus airplanes. Honestly, the simplicity of working on them is a big difference. Some of the stuff on the SR-20/22 is crazy, as to things that have to be done (specifically the parachute repack).

What besides the parachute is crazy? I find it a lot easier/nicer to work on a SR-20 than the PA-28's/172's I have worked on.

/Lars
139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3508
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:51 pm

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 53):

What besides the parachute is crazy? I find it a lot easier/nicer to work on a SR-20 than the PA-28's/172's I have worked on.

Its not the procedures per say, but the fact that many of the older mechanics who work in the general aviation field aren't as comfortable with the new glass planes. As such, I've flown it often takes longer to get something fixed on the Cirrus/Diamond style airplanes, especially when you are flying away from the big cities. Have an issue in the wide open country with a Cirrus, and it could take longer to get it fixed than a Cessna.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
swiftski
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:19 am

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:07 pm

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 48):
Correct, on part. It can recover from spins, from what I've seen and been told by various pilot. But the parachute is required for certification, which is why every 10 years, you have to go drop $10,000 to get the thing repacked. $10,000 will buy me a lot of fuel for a similar airplane, while it gets you nowhere for the Cirrus.

The altitude loss in the demonstrated spin recovery was too great for certification purposes.



I fly an Cirrus 3-4 times a week and it's a great aircraft. Contrary to popular belief neither I, nor anyone I have flown with, sits with their hand near the chute handle waiting for the tiniest of excuses to pull.
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:15 am

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 50):

If he don't he should find another. The mechanic is legally responsible for whatever he does on the aircraft.

Really smart answer. are you doing this with purpose
Igorance over the roof. Happened in the pass that whole wing sections separated. Not to mention how easy is to disable flight controls, lets say on piper tomahawk
Have you ever heard of lightning striking small aircraft, what happens in a composite one. What about that military guy who pull 4 g's with cessna 172 and heavy crosswind landings?

I really don't see a need for parachute here
 
User avatar
larshjort
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:54 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:47 am

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 56):
Have you ever heard of lightning striking small aircraft, what happens in a composite one.

A small hole where it enters and a small hole wher it leaves the aircraft

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 54):
Have an issue in the wide open country with a Cirrus, and it could take longer to get it fixed than a Cessna.

Agreed but that has more to do with the extensive network of maintenance facilities due to the much larger number of Cessnas. It isn't the fault of the aircraft, but of course it's a downside in the overall evaluation of the aircraft.

/Lars
139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
 
VokinLoksar
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 11:04 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:14 pm

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 50):
If he don't he should find another. The mechanic is legally responsible for whatever he does on the aircraft.

Legal responsibility comes into play after your airplane is in many small pieces. A few months ago I was doing my preflight on a Cirrus SR20 right after it came out of maintenance and noticed that the oil filler cap was missing. I'm not sure how serious that would have been for a flight (is it possible for oil to spill back out?) but it simply illustrates that no amount of legal or other consequences will stand in the way of simple human errors. This airplane belongs to a flight school, so it's not really an option for me to perform own maintenance or even monitor how the work is done, though I've never had any concerns about it.

I'm using the Cirrus for my instrument rating after getting private in a Cessna 172. IMHO, people are making a much bigger issue out of the parachute than it really is. It's another level of protection for any pilot, not good or bad ones. I can understand people opting for more carrying capacity when purchasing their own airplanes, but the ridicule of this feature in general is a bit strange to me. Likewise, if you are able to spend $500k to buy the plane, another $10k every 10 years (if that's what it is) to repack the chute seems like a minor inconvenience.

If you want to criticize Cirrus for anything, criticize the marketing efforts to people with more money than sense (as others have put it), criticize the iffy spin characteristics or some of the design choices like the unreachable circuit breaker panel, poor visibility, and spring-loaded cartridges on the side-stick. If anything, the G1000 system in that plane is a far more likely reasons for people to take stupid risks, especially weather-related, than the parachute.

I, for one, look forward to other manufacturers offering similar systems as an option. Making it mandatory would be going too far, but giving customers a choice of greater payload capacity or an extra safety feature and increased maintenance costs is perfectly reasonable. Having said that, I plan on returning to Cessna for my commercial training due to the few design flaws mentioned previously and for reduced renting costs.

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 57):
A small hole where it enters and a small hole wher it leaves the aircraft

That depends on the lightning and the composite materials in question. See Bristow Flight 56C.
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:15 pm

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 57):
A small hole where it enters and a small hole wher it leaves the aircraft

keep joking. small hole a? Why don't you ask a pilot that actually got struck. And flash can cause blindness for half an hour.

Am tired of this another aviation conversation, parachutes are useless, end of topic
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3508
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:51 pm

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 57):

Agreed but that has more to do with the extensive network of maintenance facilities due to the much larger number of Cessnas

I don't even think it's that. Here in the US, basically every A&P has worked on a Cessna and Piper at some point. Part of it is the time they've been around (both plane and A&P). Seeing as they make up a large portion of the light GA fleet, mechanics have incentive to be able to work on them. You end up with something else (not just Cirrus) like say a Mooney, it might be difficult to find somebody who knows how to work on them. Sure, anyone can, but finding someone who is familiar with them isn't easy.

Quoting VokinLoksar (Reply 58):
If anything, the G1000 system in that plane is a far more likely reasons for people to take stupid risks, especially weather-related, than the parachute.

I don't think it's that. Might be part, but the biggest thing is the TKS system, which is for inadvertent icing encounters, which some pilots may take liberty to just fly through the ice with. Granted, they do have the FIKI model now, but even with that, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable in any amount of icing. Another issue is people flying extremely high, and running out of O2. Simple to prevent, but it still manages to happen.

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 59):

Am tired of this another aviation conversation, parachutes are useless, end of topic

If you honestly believe that is what I and others are saying, you sir are a fool. I'm not saying its useless, but the system has very, very, very marginal usefulness. You don't want to see to listen to other opinions on the topic, and if we don't agree with you, we are automatically wrong. So, keep drinking your parachute panacea kool aid.

Flying has risk, especially in general aviation. If you can't accept risk, stay on the ground. Heck, for that matter, don't ever leave your house. Some of us are willing to take slightly more risk. Nothing wrong with that, but you can't seem to accept that.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5728
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:30 pm

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 60):
You end up with something else (not just Cirrus) like say a Mooney, it might be difficult to find somebody who knows how to work on them. Sure, anyone can, but finding someone who is familiar with them isn't easy.

As someone who has run an FBO, I can attest to the truth in this. Mooneys, especially, have a reputation (not totally deserved) of being hard to work on, and many A & P's don't want to work on them if they can avoid it. When they are compelled to it will often take longer and cost more than it should.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 60):
I'm not saying its useless, but the system has very, very, very marginal usefulness.

I wouldn't say that. I certainly can appreciate that there can arise situations where the chute would save my life, but the question is whether or not it is worth the cost; first, the initial cost, second, the cost of carrying it around all the time, and third, the maintenance cost. My conclusion for my own flying is no; but others may come to a different conclusion, and I have no problem with that. But if your engine fails over the mountains, or you get caught in unforseen icing, or get caught in IFR weather without the skill to get through it, you will be very glad to have the chute. It is all about risk management. Anyone who is not willing to take a significant amount of risk will not be a single engine pilot in the first place. In my mind it is not an unreasonable risk, but I acknowledge that it is there, just like riding a motorcycle.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7184
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:20 pm

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 60):

If you honestly believe that is what I and others are saying, you sir are a fool.

Or at the very least he's loosing a lot in translation   

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 60):
I'm not saying its useless, but the system has very, very, very marginal usefulness.

Agreed.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 61):
But if your engine fails over the mountains,

One of the few valid scenarios for the parachute IMO

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 61):
or you get caught in unforseen icing, or get caught in IFR weather without the skill to get through it, you will be very glad to have the chute.

Ah but this is the problem. You'll notice a lot of the parachute deployments happened in thick IFR weather with "unforeseen" icing. So Joe Rich Lawyer feels really confident in his shiny new SR22 GTS 3 with FIKI approval, parachute, and all the bells and whistles and his newly minted but barely double-digit-time-logged IFR license, and thinks it would be a good idea to fly THROUGH a thick storm in obvious icing conditions, just because he has a parachute and a mediocre anti-icing system.

That's the danger of these planes, they give these low time noob pilots with money to burn an extremely false sense of security. If I owned a Cirrus, or any other light plane for that matter, regardless if I have anti-icing or not, I'm sure as hell not going to fly through known icing or take a route that will put me through a line of thunderstorms or what have you. It's stupid.

[Edited 2010-06-08 12:23:46]
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5728
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:44 pm

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 62):
That's the danger of these planes, they give these low time noob pilots with money to burn an extremely false sense of security. If I owned a Cirrus, or any other light plane for that matter, regardless if I have anti-icing or not, I'm sure as hell not going to fly through known icing or take a route that will put me through a line of thunderstorms or what have you. It's stupid.

There are times when weather can surprise you. I totally agree that the parachute and FIKI can provide you with a false sense of security; I regard FIKI as a safety measure that will enable you to GET OUT of icing as quickly as possible, and even with it I would never plan to fly into icing. But it does allow you to fly IFR in winter with a bit less worry. The whole point I am trying to make is that unforseen things happen, and people do sometimes make less than intelligent decisions.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3508
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:20 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 63):
There are times when weather can surprise you. I totally agree that the parachute and FIKI can provide you with a false sense of security; I regard FIKI as a safety measure that will enable you to GET OUT of icing as quickly as possible, and even with it I would never plan to fly into icing. But it does allow you to fly IFR in winter with a bit less worry. The whole point I am trying to make is that unforseen things happen, and people do sometimes make less than intelligent decisions.

Absolutely. My problem is with the people who have the earlier model SR-22's, that have TKS, but aren't FIKI approved, who think that they can still fly in the ice safely. As much as I hate to say it, the SR-22 is the new Bonanza. Sleek, appealing to those with lots of money, and very capable of reaching out and biting the low time pilot who doesn't respect the airplane. For those people, I'm sure the parachute leads them towards purchasing the thing.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Wed Jun 09, 2010 5:31 am

OK, why do glider pilots always have parachutes with them?
Isn't glider way easier to land with 30-35 knots?

Am sure everyone practiced slow flight and approaches to stall at high altitude. But did one practice ie cessna 152 at 45 knots for short field landing? Cause bonanza with 4 pax and fuel load at lets say 70 might be preety hard to stop, when in lands. I landed loade with C172RG, made stripes on the runway with max braking, but the stoping distance way long (got me thinking)
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7184
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:01 am

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 65):
OK, why do glider pilots always have parachutes with them?

I don't think this is the case in the US as far as I know but it may be the law in some countries.

But I do know anybody intending to do aerobatics must wear a parachute in the US.

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 65):
But did one practice ie cessna 152 at 45 knots for short field landing? Cause bonanza with 4 pax and fuel load at lets say 70 might be preety hard to stop, when in lands.

Hardly a valid comparison. A 152 is a kite compared to the Bonanzas.

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 65):
I landed loade with C172RG, made stripes on the runway with max braking, but the stoping distance way long (got me thinking)

The RG's are terrible short-landers not because of weight issues but because of the tiny tires they have. There's no way you can fit the regular tires from the fixed gear versions in the RGs. That's why they're so easy to lock up. I flew the 182RG for 20 somewhat hours and hated every one of those hours. It flies as bad as it looks, IMO.
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:48 pm

Cutlass 172 flies 6 climb much faster, 20 hp more, rg and controllable pitch, but you must be really carefull @ landing
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3508
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:41 pm

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 65):
OK, why do glider pilots always have parachutes with them?
Isn't glider way easier to land with 30-35 knots?

Perhaps its the midair collision risk you run, when a bunch of gliders end up in the same thermal, running a 45 degree bank angle to stay in the lift, with half a dozen other gliders right there.

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 65):
Am sure everyone practiced slow flight and approaches to stall at high altitude. But did one practice ie cessna 152 at 45 knots for short field landing?

Power-off stall, is what you want. Oddly enough, one must demonstrate such an event on a pilot checkride here. But, honestly, if you stall at 500 feet, in all likely hood, the BRS system isn't going to save you. I think most of the common sense out there says you need to have pulled by 1,000 ft AGL

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 66):

But I do know anybody intending to do aerobatics must wear a parachute in the US.

Nope, don't have to as long as you are solo, but would be a fool to not wear one.

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 67):
Cutlass 172 flies 6 climb much faster, 20 hp more, rg and controllable pitch, but you must be really carefull @ landing

20 horsepower more than what? I've flown straight leg 172's with 180 horsepower, and there are some out there with as much as 210 horsepower.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Wed Jun 09, 2010 5:56 pm

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 68):
Power-off stall, is what you want. Oddly enough, one must demonstrate such an event on a pilot checkride here. But, honestly, if you stall at 500 feet, in all likely hood, the BRS system isn't going to save you. I think most of the common sense out there says you need to have pulled by 1,000 ft AGL

You didn't understand me. You don't have BRS and want to land on some short field. Landing is the easy part, but how to stop?

I was reffering ot regular cessna with 160 hp, the rg has 180
 
dw747400
Posts: 1100
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:45 pm

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 69):
You didn't understand me. You don't have BRS and want to land on some short field. Landing is the easy part, but how to stop?



If a field isn't long enough, we don't go there. Its pretty simple. If it is an emergency situation and you need to land in a short field, you use the appropriate procedures for the aircraft in question so you are going at the minimum possible speed when you run out of runway. Generally a survivable accident. A parachute deployment is the same exact thing--a normally survivable accident. Don't mistake a CAPS system for a magic solution--it doesn't work 100% of the time, requires certain parameters to be met in order to be effective, and your airplane is still going to be totalled.

I don't mean to be rude, but you really need to become more familiar with the operation of general aviation aircraft before you make some of your comments. A lot of folks on this site have thousands of flight hours and decades of operations experience, both in general aviation and in commerical operations. Don't discount what they say as being absurd simply because it doesn't make sense to you. Asking politely for clarification will help you understand they really do know what they are talking about!
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3508
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:54 pm

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 69):

You didn't understand me. You don't have BRS and want to land on some short field. Landing is the easy part, but how to stop?

I was reffering ot regular cessna with 160 hp, the rg has 180

Oh, I see where your going with this. Short field, we can't land, so we'll just pull the chute. Gotcha   And by regular Cessna, you mean a 172R model, or older I suppose. There are so many different power setups for the Skyhawk, that its almost impossible to keep up with. Heck, you've got the Continental O-300 powered planes, the Lycoming O-320 powered planes, the Lycoming O-360 powered planes, the Lycoming IO-360 powered planes, and the Continental IO-360 powered planes.

Quoting dw747400 (Reply 70):
If a field isn't long enough, we don't go there. Its pretty simple. If it is an emergency situation and you need to land in a short field, you use the appropriate procedures for the aircraft in question so you are going at the minimum possible speed when you run out of runway

Exactly. In many GA airplanes, there are lots of places that you can land at, but you couldn't get back out of there. Its not uncommon to be able to stop a plane in 1,200 feet or so, but good luck getting off of 1,200 feet with any load in the plane.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:29 pm

May you describe appropriate procedures...
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:41 pm

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 68):
Perhaps its the midair collision risk you run, when a bunch of gliders end up in the same thermal, running a 45 degree bank angle to stay in the lift, with half a dozen other gliders right there.

While that's some of it, parachutes are not required (except for competition or aerobatics) in the US.

And while there are sometimes a bunch of sailplanes in a thermal, and your neck *does* get a pretty good workout, it's not actually as chaotic as it looks - everyone is flying the same direction, is in a fairly neat column, and going about the same speed (plus or minus a few knots). So it's more like an odd formation flight. As speed do vary a bit, and different sailplanes will climb at different rates (based on both the aircraft, and the pilot's skill at working the thermal), you do get some passing/converging action going on, but it's at fairly slow rates.

At least until some idiot flies into the thermal and starts circling in the opposite of the establish direction - and then everyone close to the idiot's altitude just scatters.

In competition, of course, people push harder, so there's greater risk. But it seems to me that more accidents happen in the pattern* and around takeoff than in thermalling (and then you're usually too low anyway). I don't have any real stats to back that up, just my opinion.

But I prefer to wear a seatpack 'chute, if is an option.


*A complicating factor with sailplanes is that being unpowered, the "pattern" is often not an option if you're just managing to drag yourself back.
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7184
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 68):
Nope, don't have to as long as you are solo, but would be a fool to not wear one.

Hmm, you're right, I guess I remembered this FAR incorrectly:

Quote:

§ 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting.

(a) No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it is an approved type and has been packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger—

(1) Within the preceding 180 days, if its canopy, shrouds, and harness are composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or other similar synthetic fiber or materials that are substantially resistant to damage from mold, mildew, or other fungi and other rotting agents propagated in a moist environment; or

(2) Within the preceding 60 days, if any part of the parachute is composed of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber or materials not specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

(b) Except in an emergency, no pilot in command may allow, and no person may conduct, a parachute operation from an aircraft within the United States except in accordance with part 105 of this chapter.

(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds—

(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or

(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.

(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to—

(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or

(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by—

(i) A certificated flight instructor; or

(ii) An airline transport pilot instructing in accordance with §61.67 of this chapter.

(e) For the purposes of this section, approved parachute means—

(1) A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical standard order (C–23 series); or

(2) A personnel-carrying military parachute identified by an NAF, AAF, or AN drawing number, an AAF order number, or any other military designation or specification number.

Time to put the FAR/AIM back where it belongs: in my toilet reading material 

[Edited 2010-06-09 15:34:16]
 
swiftski
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:19 am

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:59 am

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 59):
Am tired of this another aviation conversation, parachutes are useless, end of topic

Again..

Quoting dw747400 (Reply 70):
I don't mean to be rude, but you really need to become more familiar with the operation of general aviation aircraft before you make some of your comments. A lot of folks on this site have thousands of flight hours and decades of operations experience, both in general aviation and in commerical operations. Don't discount what they say as being absurd simply because it doesn't make sense to you. Asking politely for clarification will help you understand they really do know what they are talking about!

  
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5728
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:36 pm

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 64):
As much as I hate to say it, the SR-22 is the new Bonanza. Sleek, appealing to those with lots of money, and very capable of reaching out and biting the low time pilot who doesn't respect the airplane.

This is indeed the dilemma. A beautiful machine, very capable, and deceptively easy to fly. As usual, it will undoubtedly be the insurance companies who impose reasonable requirements to try and keep fools with more money than brains from killing themselves in it. Unfortunately the insurance companies, like the rest of us, have no way of determining how much common sense a person has. Like the story my grandfather told me about the Burmese engineer on the Burma road, when told by an exasperated American engineer to use his common sense, drew himself up to his full 5'2" and announced, "Common sense is the gift of God to the chosen few. I only have a college educations."
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3508
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:47 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 76):
This is indeed the dilemma. A beautiful machine, very capable, and deceptively easy to fly. As usual, it will undoubtedly be the insurance companies who impose reasonable requirements to try and keep fools with more money than brains from killing themselves in it. Unfortunately the insurance companies, like the rest of us, have no way of determining how much common sense a person has. Like the story my grandfather told me about the Burmese engineer on the Burma road, when told by an exasperated American engineer to use his common sense, drew himself up to his full 5'2" and announced, "Common sense is the gift of God to the chosen few. I only have a college educations."

Don't get me wrong, its not all the airplane. A large portion of the problem is the type of marketing that Cirrus (and lately Cessna with the Corvallis) does to get people to buy the plane. I know they have to sell planes, but promising people that you can get through the weather no matter what, is quite stupid, unless you are in a twin turbine airplane.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5728
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:48 pm

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 77):
I know they have to sell planes, but promising people that you can get through the weather no matter what, is quite stupid, unless you are in a twin turbine airplane.

I would have thought that Cessna would have learned from the Thurmond Munson lawsuit to avoid that, but maybe memories have gotten short. And even twin turbines have limitations; there is weather out there that will bring down anything that flies.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3508
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:17 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 78):

I would have thought that Cessna would have learned from the Thurmond Munson lawsuit to avoid that, but maybe memories have gotten short. And even twin turbines have limitations; there is weather out there that will bring down anything that flies.

Its only on the Columbia (well now Cessna) 400 that I see Cirrus like marketing claims. But, seeing how similar the planes are, Cessna is basically forced to follow Cirrus, in order to sell some airplanes.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5728
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Ballistic Recovery

Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:16 pm

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 79):
But, seeing how similar the planes are, Cessna is basically forced to follow Cirrus, in order to sell some airplanes.

If I were running Cessna advertising I would offer point by point comparisons to the Cirrus without explicitly mirroring Cirrus's claims. Claims like that can come back and bite you, big time. It's not worth it to sell a few airplanes if it costs you multi-million dollar lawsuits.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: teachpdx and 13 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos