Jump to content

Flying at CG limits - what to expect


Ed Cesnalis

Recommended Posts

Whew! Guess we beat this one to death? CT, your comments about just getting an App on one's smart phone for W&B is best but I've learned a lot about the "basics" of W&B and C.G. by going thru this exercise of building the SS and by getting great feedback from forum members. Got your comment about the envelope graph not being unique to my CTSW but is a generic graph. This makes sense due to all CTSW's having same dimensions and if rigged the same, probably same flight response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I mean do you have to put weight back in place of the chute when its sent off if you still want to fly without it? Or a suit case full of clothes, I think the chute weighs about 35 lbs is that right?

 

If you want to fly with the chute removed you are supposed to re-weigh the airplane and figure the empty weight CG wit it removed..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean do you have to put weight back in place of the chute when its sent off if you still want to fly without it? Or a suit case full of clothes, I think the chute weighs about 35 lbs is that right?

 

If you are not experimental, to fly without the chute you need a letter from FD they will never give you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are allowed to fly temporarily without the chute. There is an LOA for this. No adding weights or other actions required except to recalculate the plane's W&B. The early CT's didn't have chutes. There is a 2004 CTSW at my field with no chute. With all the discussions about CG on the CT, so long as you put weight where it was designed then is is hard to get a CT out of CG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the context of flying without the chute, in a thread that discusses how a CTSW can exceed the forward limit of the CG envelope it seems odd to use the ' is hard to get a CT out of CG' line.

 

How about, 'full fuel, light pilot and no luggage in a CTSW would likely require ballast' removal of the chute would make this even more likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are allowed to fly temporarily without the chute. There is an LOA for this. No adding weights or other actions required except to recalculate the plane's W&B. The early CT's didn't have chutes. There is a 2004 CTSW at my field with no chute. With all the discussions about CG on the CT, so long as you put weight where it was designed then is is hard to get a CT out of CG.

 

Is the chute-less LoA a recent thing? I was under the distinct impression for a couple of years now at least that FD considered the BRS to be required equipment and did not want you to fly without it.

 

What is the scope of the LoA? Does it allow you to fly any time without the BRS, or only when it's out for re-pack or other maintenance? Are there any other restrictions? Is this a blanket LoA or do you have to apply for it for each aircraft?

 

Sorry if my previous post was wrong, I was *sure* that FD did not allow flying a CT without the silk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the chute-less LoA a recent thing? I was under the distinct impression for a couple of years now at least that FD considered the BRS to be required equipment and did not want you to fly without it.

 

What is the scope of the LoA? Does it allow you to fly any time without the BRS, or only when it's out for re-pack or other maintenance? Are there any other restrictions? Is this a blanket LoA or do you have to apply for it for each aircraft?

 

Sorry if my previous post was wrong, I was *sure* that FD did not allow flying a CT without the silk.

 

Andy, it is not an approval to remove the BRS, but rather an approval to fly the airplane while the chute is removed for maintenance. Like flying the airplane to your maintenance facility to have it removed, and then flying it home while the chute is sent out for repack. The MRA for the chute repack provides the procedure. When the FDUSA website is back up I'll try and link to the document.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy, it is not an approval to remove the BRS, but rather an approval to fly the airplane while the chute is removed for maintenance. Like flying the airplane to your maintenance facility to have it removed, and then flying it home while the chute is sent out for repack. The MRA for the chute repack provides the procedure. When the FDUSA website is back up I'll try and link to the document.

 

Ah, sounds almost like a ferry permit. So does it *not* allow you to fly recreationally, for example if the chute is out for two weeks for a repack can you go fly? Or only back and forth to the maintenance facility?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, sounds almost like a ferry permit. So does it *not* allow you to fly recreationally, for example if the chute is out for two weeks for a repack can you go fly? Or only back and forth to the maintenance facility?

 

Andy, I don't remember the details, so that is why I wanted to get the document.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chute is not required equipment, its listed equipment. Anything you remove from the list likely requires a reweigh and recalc of W&B.

 

Insurance doesn't even care if you have one, why would anyone else? Oh, and I am told that the Cirrus has a BRS because it can't pass spin tests.

 

Removing the chute is an alteration. To make an alteration you must have approval from the manufacturer. That is why you just can't remove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chute is not required equipment, its listed equipment. Anything you remove from the list likely requires a reweigh and recalc of W&B.

 

Insurance doesn't even care if you have one, why would anyone else? Oh, and I am told that the Cirrus has a BRS because it can't pass spin tests.

 

I'd think if you need a manufacturer's letter to fly without it, it is in fact required equipment.

 

Why would the manufacturer care if you fly without the parachute? Liability. Not a great reason IMO, but it drives a lot of aviation decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liability is probably as good a reason as any. If your spouse sues the manufacturer and wins a multi-million dollar settlement, that would be pretty significant for many companies, not to mention the cost to defend the case.

 

Yeah, how are you going to win that case after the teary-eyed widow asks "Why, WHY did you let my poor husband fly while the airplane was missing an essential piece of safety equipment?"

 

Sad but true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chute is not required equipment, its listed equipment. Anything you remove from the list likely requires a reweigh and recalc of W&B.

 

Insurance doesn't even care if you have one, why would anyone else? Oh, and I am told that the Cirrus has a BRS because it can't pass spin tests.

 

The Cirrus was fine in spin tests but Cirrus wanted the added safety of the chute in their design and thus far it has saved many lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw my mechanic remove a chute put a placard on dash and record in maint. log that the chute was removed for service, off the owner went, flying without the chute back home he went, planning on flying without it.Just saying I'm sure it will be clear soon what can be done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then its a rumor and not true. I heard this from a half dozen aviation guys at the AOPA safety conference last night in Reno, NV.

 

 

 

This from the COPA website.

 

Myth: The SR20/SR22 can't recover from a spin

 

Wrong. It can.

 

What is more probable is that average pilots cannot recover from a spin, whether flying a Cirrus or any other plane. And it is almost certain that low-altitude spins cannot be recovered before ground impact. So, in a Cirrus, use CAPS.

 

Furthermore, the Europeans tested spins in the SR20 and found that it recovered, although it took more aggressive maneuvers to put into a spin and more aggressive maneuvers to recover. After about 60 spin tests, they abandoned that approach and approved the FAA ELOS certification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand, Cirrus had all their certification ducks in a row, except spin testing. They did a cost analysis and found that instead of really expensive spin testing, it made more sense to skip it, and install a BRS. They could then market the chute as an enhanced safety feature, and pass the cost to the customer which would be less that the per unit cost of spin testing would add to the sticker price. Good business decision. At least that is what I have heard from a Cirrus employee.

 

All reports is that the Cirrus recovers conventionally from spins, even though the lack of spin testing mandates that the only approved method of recovery is to pull the red handle. I have heard that the CT also recovers conventionally in spite of not being approved for spins. What an airframe can do and what it is approved for are rarely the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand, Cirrus had all their certification ducks in a row, except spin testing. They did a cost analysis and found that instead of really expensive spin testing, it made more sense to skip it, and install a BRS.

 

That doesn't sound right.

 

The story goes that Alan Klapmeier, one of the founders, had a midair and survived. His goal from the beginning was to design a plane in which a midair would be survivable - hence the chute.

 

But I'd have to research that to say its correct in all it's details. But that's the story I remember.

 

Here you go:

 

The original idea for the parachute was born out of one of the most terrifying, though fortunately infrequent aircraft accident types: a mid-air collision. In 1985, while training under the hood with a CFI, Alan Klapmeier experienced a mid-air collision that killed the pilot of the other aircraft. Although the crash removed more than 3 feet of the right wing and over 4 feet of the aileron, Klapmeier was able to land safely using nearly full left aileron.

 

Convinced by this and other incidents that aircraft could be made safer so that more pilots would survive these and other events, the brothers formulated a plan for incorporating a parachute into their future aircraft. To date, a few dozen Cirrus aircraft pilots have been saved by the BRS parachute.

 

Source: http://www.maxtrescott.com/max_trescott_on_general_a/2009/04/general-aviation-heroes-part-iv-dale-and-alan-klapmeier-of-cirrus-design.html

 

Now that doesn't mean a decision based on cost was not made to preclude spin testing - only that that was not the nexus of providing BRS in the Cirrus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...