Engine failure, running out of fuel, stalls, spins, midair collisions, disorientation, etc. Cirrus has a history of CAPS deployments, linked in the article and copied here: https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History
But I was under the impression that pilot training has a lot of attention on recovery from a stall or spin, and unless at low altitude, those are generally recoverable (in a small aircraft). Would love for someone with actual knowledge to weigh in, thanks!
In docile trainer aircraft the spin can be recovered from, but that's usually only allowed to be tested in the utility category which has more restrictive weight & balance limits. In famously efficient airframes, it can take several thousand feet. In this article, the famously hard to insure pilot killer the Lancair IV took 4,000 feet: https://www.kitplanes.com/taming-the-lancair-iv/
Part of the Part 23 (certified aircraft rules) process is demonstrating spin recovery. The Lancair is experimental so it's not Part 23. Cirrus said, "We put in a parachute instead of demonstrating spin recovery." To which the FAA said, "OK, that works for us."
Since the Cirrus prohibits spins (most certified aircraft do) and Cirrus never demonstrated it officially, I only have the word of random comments on the internet to go with. The assumed state is, "The SR22 has poor recovery characteristics from spins and the manufacturer states in the POH that CAPS is the only recovery method." Maybe it's not all that bad, but at pattern altitude (this has sadly been demonstrated) I'm sure it's fatal.
There's some folklore in that criticism. Cirrus listed CAPS as its spin recovery technique because it was the easiest + cheapest way to demonstrate that it meets FAR 23.221. EASA didn't accept that and required actual spin recovery, so a test pilot put an SR20 into a spin about 60 times without incident. It sounds like there is some technique to it, but nothing that couldn't be taught in transition training or that you wouldn't expect from such a slippery airframe:
> The Cirrus test pilot performing the spin program noted that while all spins entered were recoverable, they required a method of spin recovery that, while not unique in light general aviation airplanes, is different from that of a light trainer airplane in which a pilot is likely to receive spin training. Significant variability in spin recovery training techniques also exists – ranging from merely releasing the elevator control in some light trainers, to movement of the control to neutral, to brisk forward movement to neutral, to brisk foreward movement past neutral, etc.. In the case of the SR20, the proper spin recovery procedure is to briskly move the elevator control to the full down position. This is an unnatural control movement, when the nose of the aircraft may already appear to the pilot to be pointing down sharply. This is also a movement not typically advocated by spin training instructors due to associated discomfort.
Stall avoidance and recovery is mandatory training for certification, arguably mandatory training for make/model checkout even if there's no type rating required.
Stall spin training is only required for flight instructor certification. While anyone can do this training, FARs require both instructor and student are wearing a parachute, unless it's for CFI training.
It can take time and altitude to recover a spin, and low altitude maneuvers are often where unintentional spins occur. That said, I don't know what the minimum altitude for a parachute deployment is. That'd be important.
There are no minumums per say. If you need it pull it. The higher you pull it the better it can work. They say the demonstrated parameters are: 400 feet in straight and level flight and 920 feet in spin.
Very impressive to see how many people were able to walk away from these incidents, I wonder what the counts of injury or worse would look like without this system?
Also it seems like these small planes have a lot of incidents, I'm guessing due to relatively inexperienced pilots?
>Also it seems like these small planes have a lot of incidents, I'm guessing due to relatively inexperienced pilots?
There's also less redundancy in the plane overall so if something goes wrong it's more likely to lead to serious issues. A large commercial plane has multiple pilots, engines, power sources, control surface systems, computers, sensors, etc.
Small plane pilots are generally “not as experienced as they could be” and so Cirrus pilots are trained “when in doubt pop it out” as you might be able to successfully crash land or make it to a landing field, but the chute doesn’t work below a certain altitude.
This incident looks like it may be one of those cases. The pilot was on the glide slope to the airport when he runs into a microburst and decides to pull the lever before getting pushed down into the lake.
I’ve seen way too many episodes of Air Crash Investigations.
A microburst could easily take out a full-sized airline at low altitude. That’s why airports and planes have equipment to detect air shear so they don’t fly into it. Small planes are far more affected by weather and don’t typical have radar or safety systems like flight envelope protection.
General Aviation/Private Aviation is as dangerous as riding a motorcycle, per hour of participation. At least the last time I checked the statistics. It might have improved with navigation technology and flight planning software becoming more affordable.
Yeah but to be fair, aviation statistics would also be 10% as bad if they excluded people who didn’t fly into bad weather, took off overweight, didn’t have enough fuel in the tanks, ran out of light or were too fatigued, or couldn’t say ‘no’ to tasking or an unserviceable aircraft.
Small planes are often flown under visual rules without a flight plan, meaning that pilots are free to basically dick around... with prohibitions against unauthorized entry into controlled airspace and flying too close to people and structures on the ground. And that's totally fine when done responsibly.
But the free-form nature of the vehicle operation provides more opportunity for screw-ups. Maybe someone was buzzing his house or not paying attention to flying while giving a sightseeing tour to his friends.
Compared to commercial flights, it's no wonder that GA has a far higher accident rate. Commercial flights fly extremely predictable and repetitive routes and procedures, which reduce the number of variables into the mission. I'd liken the comparison to that between personal cars and buses, except commercial air travel is even more regimented than bus travel.
