Cirrus SB

This won't look good in court re the Liddell lawsuit...

"Last week Cirrus issued a mandatory Service Bulletin that requires the replacement of some control system parts that, in specific cross control circumstances, can cause the rudder and aileron controls to jam. The Service Bulletin was issued a month after the controls jammed on a relatively new SR20 as a student pilot was lining up for takeoff at Leesburg, Va. According to the NTSB report, the student had applied full right rudder and full left aileron and both systems locked. His instructor aborted the takeoff safely. Investigators found control system parts tangled together and were able to repeat the jamming action."

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cirrus_Issues_Service_Bulletin_After_Control_Jam_195189-1.html

Probably had nothing to do with it, but I suspect it'll encourage Cirrus to settle. (Ok, so this isn't Piper related, but the subject has come up in another couple of threads already.)

Comments

  • > [...] have clogged arteries to actually believe
    > Cirrus had anything to do with that crash.

    Oh, I agree. But like I say, the timing won't look good.
  • And like I said here before, doesn't matter what you are flying, you have to look out the windshield !


    mike
  • Just noticed this post from years ago and the first time I have seen it, the jamming in the controls would explain many other accidents that have occured over the years in the Cirrus. Something that has puzzled me over the years with this planes crash history is the high number of experienced pilots that have had accidents in this plane, the controls jamming could be more of an issue than we ever new, and I would like to give some of the pilots the benifiet of the doubt given the problem with plane. Didn't the first test pilot for Cirrus get killed when some controls jammed in the plane?
  • And now the first ones and then all of them as they approach 10 years need to have the stupid spin recovery procedure unit (parachute) replaced for 10K. Nice.
  • Flyguydon

    I am based at an airport with a Cirrus Service Center, more like 12+k I am told by the owners (Ouch), Oh well they bought a plane not passing a typical FAA Spin Certification like most other GA's, hard to feel sorry for the owners and the high cost since they wanted a parachute and they got it.
  • MikeG, I don't think every post has to be about Pipers if it involves safety. Most of us have friends who fly other types of planes, and some folks own more than one type of plane. I think anything that involves safety is okay to post here. I knew that Cirrus had some problems but I didn't realize the full extent of it. I also read a report about Cirrus having exhaust system cracks that may have contributed to some fatalities from carbon monoxide. I'll see if I can find that report and post a link to it.
    After reading your post if someone offers to take me somewhere for a 100 dollar hamburger in their Cirrus, I might just decide I'm not all that hungry. Thanks.

    Mike
  • There is an interesting discussion of the spin/parachute issue in Episode #84 of the Pilotcast podcast: Link. It is consistent with the info. in Guest's post directly above.
  • Guest wrote:
    the Cirrus indeed passed a full spin matrix for European certification. And the parachute is an extra back-up, as it was intended to be- in case of mid-air collision, like the one Alan Klapmeier had years ago. He was lucky enough to survive, and insisted that the newly designed Cirrus would be equipped with a parachute as a safety device of last resort.
    Your facts are incorrect on the spin matrix for European Certification, it never passed nor completed the testing, they did some testing and then "Abandoned the Testing' the plane was later approved the same way it was done in the USA on the ELOS method in Europe just like the USA . The parachute is a safety device as you say, but is a requirement and the only method approved to recover from a spin (see the POH Cirrus), since the plane never passed the FAA spin certification requirements. Do your own research and rlearn to read between the lines of Cirrus Marketing and you might be surprised what you find.


    The service bulletin you refer to concerns a BUNGEE cord that interconnects aileron and rudder to help coordinate flight. Under full cross-controlled conditions, the clamp on the bungee could get caught on the clamp on the aileron cable. It doesn't really jam the controls, since you can just push the rudder or aileron and it will snap back easily. It's a bungee, after all. The service bulletin just makes you position the clamps correctly since some were in the wrong place.

    Sound like a problem to me positioning them correctly since it isn't clamped in the right place


    Now that you have the facts, you can talk intelligently about the Cirrus. It can't be too bad of a plane, since it's outselling all the other four-seat piston brands combined.

    I have all the facts and personally prefer a plane certified and tested by the FAA to recover from a spin like 99% of all the other GA aircraft, like Cirrus old slogan "Chute Happens" how bad is that, they could add Pull Hard & Pull Often, so you can keep buying a new one every time you total one
  • Didn't you say you were leaving these forums, Paul?
  • Rob

    Yup, I am leaving the forums when my membership expires if you need to know.
  • Guest wrote:
    Well, this just makes my blood boil. All of us pilots with only one half a brain knows the Lidle crash was pilot error. Those of you with a full brain must have clogged arteries to actually believe Cirrus had anything to do with that crash.

    Guest

    As much as I think the crash may have been pilot error, the winds were from the east that day and not typical, I wouldn't rule anything out like maybe the controls did jam in the turn and could have been a contributing factor if that occurred. Keep in mind he had an experienced flight instructor too was onboard, so I wouldn't rule out anything given the crash history of the plane, and hopefully they will determine the cause as I personally think all too often the NTSB concludes it was pilot error, when in fact could have been another issue with the plane as in this case jammed controls which could be difficult to detect from the wreckage.
  • Guest wrote:
    the controls would BIND, not JAM, when fully cross controlled. Why would Lidell have been fully cross controlled in that turn? Think about it. Fully cross-controlled at 130 knots? DUH? He flew a perfectly good plane into a building by not understanding wind drift. Could have happened with ANY plane.

    Further, are you going to argue with the 200 people who have would otherwise be dead without the parachute they had in their plane? Tell them they should be dead, and shouldn't have had the option of saving their lives?

    Guest

    The DOT & FAA used the word "Jamming" and for your information there is no indication that it only occurs in a cross controlled condition as you and others have suggested, see below the Mandatory AD from them and read the document. As for the 200 people you say would be dead without the parachute, I don't know the number but will assume its may be accurate as you stated, have you taken a detailed look at the Cirrus accidents and cause from the NTSB reports?

    http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/d662e08edec2b46f862573e60059e686/$FILE/2008-03-16.pdf
  • Guest wrote:
    PaulR wrote:
    Guest wrote:
    Well, this just makes my blood boil. All of us pilots with only one half a brain knows the Lidle crash was pilot error. Those of you with a full brain must have clogged arteries to actually believe Cirrus had anything to do with that crash.

    Guest

    As much as I think the crash may have been pilot error, the winds were from the east that day and not typical, I wouldn't rule anything out like maybe the controls did jam in the turn and could have been a contributing factor if that occurred. Keep in mind he had an experienced flight instructor too was onboard, so I wouldn't rule out anything given the crash history of the plane, and hopefully they will determine the cause as I personally think all too often the NTSB concludes it was pilot error, when in fact could have been another issue with the plane as in this case jammed controls which could be difficult to detect from the wreckage.

    I didn't realize that there was a history of Cirrus crashes into buildings...

    Why do you continue to speak negatively about the Cirrus ad nauseum Paul?

    Guest

    There are a couple of crashes into buildings if you look at the NTSB Reports, nothing negative in posting the facts and a Mandatory AD from the manufacturer for the Cirrus Aircraft for the controls "Jamming" as the FAA has determined. Personally I think the plane has an higher than average accident rate, and the controls Jamming AD has some merit that might explain the high number of crashes in the Cirrus Aircraft I thought, and interesting to note many of these accidents were with higher flight time pilots with 500+ hours and always found that odd and think there is some other cause and could be something with the plane.
  • I would have called Newwark and told them I was VFR and described my situation and requested a higher altitude to make the 180 turn, Newwark may not like it but would have to deal with and assist you. You might get in a little trouble with the FAA but so what if you are in a situation flying with no safe out.
  • I wonder... as I have not researched and do not know for certain...

    But were all of the 200 "saves" like, ah, at night over rocky terrain? Is this figures lie and liars figure? How many of those "saves" shattered/totaled in range of potential landing sites?
  • flyguydon

    The last total number of CAPS pulls I saw was 20 chute deployments and 37 lifes saved, and 4 fatalities in 2009. I think the number suggested by Guest 200+ saves is the rough total when you add in the other planes that are equiped with the chute like experimentals, light sports etc.

    "How many of those "saves" shattered/totaled in range of potential landing sites?"

    Good question Don and I might take a look at that and post the results, and it might be scary to look at those numbers if many had airports avalible to land at as an option. One accident comes to mind in my area were a pilot in contact with Natuckett ATC when the airport went from VFR to IFR and was getting vectors from the tower didn't even try and land, when the "The controller asked the pilot what his type of airplane was, and the pilot replied, "Cirrus I had to pull the parachute." didn't even try and land or seek an alternate...Kind of a extreme way of going missed and pulling the parachute.

    http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070821X01216&key=1
  • Yeah. I saw that one to a while back.

    Wait till the first one parachutes into a power sub station... or catches the edge of a cliff at say 8000 feet... or near the rim of Niagra Falls... directly in front of a semi going 80MPH!!

    If you lost a wing or total control failure it might be a good option to have as the other comes with a guarantee. But as a missed approach option it is pretty goofy.
  • Guest # 28
    I agree anything in aviation is fine no matter what manufacturer, even total non-aviation subjects are good sometimes on the forums. If one posts something I have no interest in I simply don't participate in the forum. The Guest posting about its not Piper's pops in all the time and says the same thing, oh well must be the Piper Patrol Cyber Cop...
  • Guest wrote:
    I'm left to wonder if you people go on Ford websites to discuss and Audis?

    Guest #27

    Whats an Audis, must be some new plane?
  • Flyguydon

    I call it the Cirrus Missed Approached Procedure now after the Nantucket accident, if you read the NTSB Report the plane parachute struck the Loran Tower. How bad was that for any plane talking to the Tower and getting vectors to land to just give up and not mention that before he pulled the chute, think of the other aircraft in the area in IFR conditions maybe on short final that could have collided with that plane if there was traffic?

    I was thinking about the whole accident and yes betting if he didn't have the parachute he would have done better without that crutch parachute to pull, as he would have had to fly the plane of course to save his butt. I wonder how many inadvertent VFR into IMC conditions occur each year that a pilot gets themselves out of each year that don't get reported etc? There are many incidents each year were ATC gets pilots out of bad weather when they ask for help, strange this pilot pretended to be IFR rated and told the controller he was and contributed to the accident.

    I fly to Nantucket a lot and based in the area, the Island gets hit with the gulf stream in the ocean and can fog up pretty bad and 100' ceilings and 1/4 visibility, and you can be 24 miles away at Martha's Vineyard 6,000 ceilings 50 miles visibility and catches many pilots by surprise.
  • Guest wrote:
    Block island, even more than Nantucket. is prone to sudden fog. This can happen when the weather is otherwise CAVU. On Block island pilots keep their ear tuned for the fog horn that sounds when a fog bank is approaching. Then there is a mad rush to the airport. Once I and others took off with the fog bank (about 50 feet thick from the ground up) covering about half the runway.

    KBID Block Island gets some but not as bad as Nantucket I thought, but KBID might get it faster than KACK, that house off the Departure end of runway 28 is kind of in the way an wondering if it ever got hit? Never new about the Fog Horn Sounding and pilots racing to get out, that's funny and can imagine the traffic jam for the departures. A nice Island too and prefer the nice bays and the boats and much more relaxed than some of the snobs on the Vineyard.
Sign In or Register to comment.