Piece of Crap Composite Parachute Cracker Box Kills Occupants

[IntheShade]

So here you go. One of the below was a guy, Joe Grimes was a pilot/mechanic/Instructor that I've visited with since a kid when going through Oklahoma.

He was an above average pilot but was giving a Bi-Annual Flight review in a crap airplane.

I hope all of you so keen on taking a ride in a composite cracker box reads the article--the fiberglass burned them to a crisp and melted on them.

The Cirrus is racking up a pretty bad accident record. The thought is that they spun in because the airplane hit inverted from the base-final turn.

To me this is both criminal and ironic. The Cirrus would not meet spin certification thus the FAA allowed them to subsitute the requirement with a ballisitic parachute.

We live in an age of marketing and this defieciency was spun to be a safety enhancement---which it isn't---it is a patch they were allowed to use for a poor design.

So however they ended up in the spin they were clearly in the dead zone of the Cirrus; an airplane incapable of recovering from a spin and to low for ballistic chute deployment.

News Article
February 7, 2008




Two die in fiery plane crash
Southwest McClain County site of accident
Susie Williams-Allen (405) 527-2126


Purcell, OK -- Two men lost their lives in a fiery plane crash in southwestern McClain County Saturday.
Dead are William Paul Jackson, 53, of Lindsay, and Joe Kenneth Grimes, 52, of Maysville.
The crash occurred in an isolated area north of Lindsay Municipal Airport, about one-quarter mile into McClain County, west of state Highway 59B around 5:30 p.m.
For an unknown reason, the 2006 Cirrus SR22, a fixed-wing, single-engine, propeller driven aircraft, lost altitude after taking off from Lindsay Municipal Airport.
On impact, the plane burst into flames. The trooper’s report said Grimes was ejected approximately 25 feet from the impact site.
The National Transportation Safety Board was on the scene Sunday to investigate the crash.
Jackson, a Lindsay veterinarian, was performing his biannual flight review, reports said. Grimes, a licensed pilot, was a flight instructor.
The men are both well known in the Lindsay and Maysville areas. Jackson has served on the Lindsay School Board for 13 years and was currently running for reelection.
Grimes was a farmer and rancher in the Hughes community, west of Maysville. He had a private airstrip on his property.
Jackson’s plane, bearing tail number N824BJ, was registered September 2006 in Jackson’s name at a Lindsay address. It was certified airworthy by the Federal Aviation Administration.

[flyboy2548m]

FWIW, if Mr. Grimes was, in fact, ejected 25' from the crash site, it seems less than likely that he was "burned to death by the fiberglass".

[screaming_emu]

And while Cirrus's spin certification, or lack thereof, is a little questionable spinning any airplane while turning base to final WILL kill you. Cirrus does have a questionable safety record but a majority of those accidents are simply caused by poor decision making. Cirrus is the new "doctor killer"

[Verbal]

Shadey, it seems that the Cirrus design deficiencies that you are citing are in its aerodynamics and controls, not its structure, as suggested by your reference to its composites. If the Cirrus is prone to spins, which forced the manufacturer to design it with the dreaded ballistic parachute in order to get it certified, then I think the airplane's structural materials are irrelevant. The airplane crashes, you die, whether it's made from aluminum, composites, or unobtainium.

[flyboy2548m]

Shadey, it seems that the Cirrus design deficiencies that you are citing are in its aerodynamics and controls, not its structure, as suggested by your reference to its composites.

I think Shadey feels that Cirrus is deficient in both departments.

[Verbal]

I think Shadey feels that Cirrus is deficient in both departments.I am categorically opposed to cheap composites.

[Gabriel]

So however they ended up in the spin they were clearly in the dead zone of the Cirrus; an airplane incapable of recovering from a spin and to low for ballistic chute deployment.
Shadey, you know that if you spin in the traffic patern you are already in the dead zone, Cirrus or not, composite or not, parachute or not.

In fact, the altitude needed to "recover" from a 1 1/2 turn spin with the parachute in the Cirrus (less than 1000ft) is less than what it takes without the parachute in most other comparable airplanes.

I agree with you, however, that the lack of traditional spin recovery certification sucks.

[3WE]

So many angles.

The Cirrus IS the new doctor killer.

It is also the "classic high performance" single where lower-time instrument pilots go and challenge weather, while 172's stay in the pattern on beautiful fall days and corporate pilots fly more capapble planes with more experience. (Restating this, is it the plane that's dangerous, or how it's flown???).

Base to final stall/spin out.....a classic crash that should never happen, but nevertheless did, does and will continue to happen.

Parachute....Apparently Cessna is ready to offer chutes- not for spin certification, but as a backup safety feature....Engine failure during the night in IFR in the mountains.........and Bring on the "airmanship" lectures from ITS.

Composites & Sidesticks.....I do find it interesting that other aircraft CURRENTLY BEING MANUFACTURED include 172's and 182's....what does that say about new technology???

Composites themselves- Someone will jump on me, but I do note that folks collect 1940's metallic farm tractors, while most plastic & fiberglass things that laymen are around on a day-to-day basis, seem to weaken and become more brittle....(Yes, I know, aircraft composites are "different").

[Peroem]

So here you go. One of the below was a guy, Joe Grimes was a pilot/mechanic/Instructor that I've visited with since a kid when going through Oklahoma.

He was an above average pilot but was giving a Bi-Annual Flight review in a crap airplane.

I hope all of you so keen on taking a ride in a composite cracker box reads the article--the fiberglass burned them to a crisp and melted on them.

The Cirrus is racking up a pretty bad accident record. The thought is that they spun in because the airplane hit inverted from the base-final turn.

To me this is both criminal and ironic. The Cirrus would not meet spin certification thus the FAA allowed them to subsitute the requirement with a ballisitic parachute.

We live in an age of marketing and this defieciency was spun to be a safety enhancement---which it isn't---it is a patch they were allowed to use for a poor design.

So however they ended up in the spin they were clearly in the dead zone of the Cirrus; an airplane incapable of recovering from a spin and to low for ballistic chute deployment.



What about the:


So This Is How It All Ends


<HR style="COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->*Poof*


IntheShade OVER & OUT

[Gabriel]

What about the:


So This Is How It All Ends




<HR style="COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->*Poof*



IntheShade OVER & OUT
Problems with Cirrus or Airbus airplanes will be the exception to the rule.

[Ike]

What about the:


So This Is How It All Ends




<HR style="COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->*Poof*



IntheShade OVER & OUT

Hit and run. Sorry. Better get used to it....

[Alessandro]

I don´t think composites is the problem with the Cirrus company, their designs are the problem. Their first kitplanes isn´t adviced to fly either.
Other designs are better and safer...

[Flying Bear]

Whichever is the fancy, modern, fast "next step up from the C172" aircraft of its day, will be the doctor killer of its day. No matter how well it is designed...

[screaming_emu]

I don´t think composites is the problem with the Cirrus company, their designs are the problem. Their first kitplanes isn´t adviced to fly either.
Other designs are better and safer...

I still don't think its a design flaw. The time I spent in the cirrus I found it to be an awesome airplane. Flies very very well. Most of the accidents are caused by people flying an airplane that is higher performance than they can handle as well as the "well I have a parachute...so I'll fly in any weather/conditions/etc" mentality. Unfortunately its hard to fix stupid/overconfidence.

[Egil]

Problems with Cirrus or Airbus airplanes will be the exception to the rule.

I was pleasantly surprised with ITS' comeback and look forward to more posts.

[JordanD]

I still don't think its a design flaw. The time I spent in the cirrus I found it to be an awesome airplane. Flies very very well. Most of the accidents are caused by people flying an airplane that is higher performance than they can handle as well as the "well I have a parachute...so I'll fly in any weather/conditions/etc" mentality. Unfortunately its hard to fix stupid/overconfidence.
Eek. Imagine the wave of crashes if these new VLJ's become as popular as everyone is expecting. One of them is even fork-tailed. :razz:

[Alessandro]

140 accidents and 50 of them fatal is rather poor I say, latest was a loss of 4 occupants
in Germany.

[Jet-fighters.Net]

The only thing positive is the fact that this thread that was dead for over a year was resurrected:nonono:

[Leftseat86]

I miss that guy.

[Alessandro]

140 accidents and 50 of them fatal is rather poor I say, latest was a loss of 4 occupants
in Germany.

ITS is now back and furthermore 3 Cirruses has had accidents, one fatal in Marocco, one write-off in the US and one lucky escape in the US.

[IntheShade]

ITS is now back and furthermore 3 Cirruses has had accidents, one fatal in Marocco, one write-off in the US and one lucky escape in the US.

And the Cirrus continues to be a cheap composite cracker box.

[Alessandro]

And the Cirrus continues to be a cheap composite cracker box.

Concur.

[Deadstick]

Indubitably.

[mawheatley]

I miss that guy.

Me too - great to see him back.

[AVIATIONFASCINATION]

Forgive me if I sound ignorant here. I have seen the result of the cirrus. Every Butt technician, Vaginal Specialist and doggie doctor seems to have one, but what in the design makes it a dangerous aircraft? It seems to be designed like every other new composite pocket rocket out there.

Tim

P.S. Good to have you back ITS

[Alessandro]

Forgive me if I sound ignorant here. I have seen the result of the cirrus. Every Butt technician, Vaginal Specialist and doggie doctor seems to have one, but what in the design makes it a dangerous aircraft? It seems to be designed like every other new composite pocket rocket out there.

Tim

P.S. Good to have you back ITS
The parachute makes it poorly balanced that´s my opinion why the Cirrus is such poor record, composite is just part of the equation.

[Dmmoore]

Forgive me if I sound ignorant here. I have seen the result of the cirrus. Every Butt technician, Vaginal Specialist and doggie doctor seems to have one, but what in the design makes it a dangerous aircraft? It seems to be designed like every other new composite pocket rocket out there.

Tim

P.S. Good to have you back ITS

The aircraft can not be recovered from some spins. To gain certification, Cirrus installed the BSRB system.

The aircraft is a high performance single engined aircraft. As such it tends to be flown by some pilots that need better skills before transitioning from a C-172 into the Cirrus. Composite material contributes to the aircraft's performance.

In short it has replaced the "Vee" tailed Bonanza as the flying doctor killer.

[Gabriel]

The aircraft can not be recovered from some spins. To gain certification, Cirrus installed the BSRB system.
The official word is that the BSRB was a design input from scratch (there's even a famous story about how the Cirrus founder survived a mid-air by pure luck and how he decided then that his aircraft would give more than luck for a second chance).

The official word goes on saying that once the BSRB was decided, and once it was noted that the FAA would accept that in lieu of spincertification, they decided not to do the spin certification to avoid certification cost and time.

At least one test pilot commented that spins were made in the Cirrus during test flights, and that the airplane recovered from them with the typical procedures, but that they did not test the whole spin matrix requiered for certification.

That's, of course the official word.

Whatever is it in reality, and while I like the whole-airframe parachute concept (not to the point to put it too high in my priorities unless requiered like in the Cirrus), the fact that a plane used it in lieu of spin certification, in my opinion, sucks.

I'd also like to see the parachutes (in the Cirrus or anywhere else) certified to Vne (so the piolt can, given enough altitude, exhaust the attempt to recover it by flying it before pulling the red handle) and not to a speed that can be legally and normally exceeded even in level cruise flight.

[IntheShade]

The greatest thing that Cirrus did was marketing.

It took a design that did not meet spin certification, equipped it with a parachute to get certified and then sold that to the public as a safety enhancement.

Marketing, marketing, marketing......

[Dmmoore]

I too may have a different reaction to the BSRB system if it were deployable under all flight conditions. "But" I contend that the usefulness of a deploy at any time system is still limited to structural failure or an IFR engine failure. Almost all other conditions would be better served by better pilot training.

[Alessandro]

The greatest thing that Cirrus did was marketing.

It took a design that did not meet spin certification, equipped it with a parachute to get certified and then sold that to the public as a safety enhancement.

Marketing, marketing, marketing......
Meanwhile, another two fatal crashes, one in Greece and one in the US.

[IntheShade]

Meanwhile, another two fatal crashes, one in Greece and one in the US.

Sadly the Cirrus is a bad design that fits in the niche market between General Aviation and Corporate Aviation-----the same niche that the earler V-Tail fit.

And both suffer the same problems:

---Poor design

---High performance with little margin

---Owners who can offord a airplane they should not be operating

---Overagressive marketing

---Performance exptectations by the owners that get them into trouble

The truth is I've flown several airplane which I thought were marginal for certification---but they were certified. None of it was a big deal because the certification process puts out a airplane with lots of margin--------but when flying one you have to be more aware and use extra care.

But if the margins are thin you can get bit. When you couple over achiever owners with puppy mill pilot skills this thing gets away from them quickly.