Flyer59 wrote:
and that is why CAPS is recommended in the case of engine failure.
Well I thought the CAPS was a substitute for an extra engine. Looking at those accidents that does not seem to be the case. It’s more like a substitute for good airmanship.
Whatever that means in the big picture.
I think it’s a tool that helps you survive many scenarios that would otherwise be deadly.
But i agree that you, Michael and Peter do not need such silly stuff.
One problem is that anybody who wants to debate this normally gets accused of Cirrus bashing. It’s good that this has not happened here.
If one day I get myself killed because I got an “autopilot induced stall” (I’d like to know who wrote those words with a straight face – it’s the equivalent of coming off the road because it developed an unexpectly small radius) then I hereby authorise all of you guys (and gals) to take the p1ss out of me 
I stick by my view that a lot of those descriptions are not a great advertisment for the chute. They are also not the sort of thing you would show your “non-flying partner” in case they think you are a pilot who might actually do that.
Anyway, the good thing is that engine failures are not a major thing. In fact there wasn’t a single engine stoppage, was there?
It’s also true that IR training doesn’t really teach you how to avoid getting into really bad wx while flying in IMC. So new IR holders could well do that. It is only modern wx data sources which help with that, though a PROBxx TSRA etc along the route would be a pretty big clue that you don’t want to be in IMC there, and TAFs and METARs have been around for decades.
I would say you don’t need a chute. Until you need it.
Autopilot induced stalls have been produced by professional, highly-trained, two-person crews on commercial flights. As with many of these mistakes, I am very cautious to point my finger at other pilots, because that is usually a dangerous attitude to assume that errors are only made by others. I think that most pilots that have made a deadly mistake were thinking the same thing before, but somehow they still ended up doing what they did.
Peter, this is really the last time I try to get through to you.
1. stupid things and other deadly mistakes are done by pilots of all types alike.
2. in the Cirrus you can survive them
3. the fatal accident rate for the last 3 years is almost 1/2 that of GA personal flights
Yes, autopilot induced stalls have happened to airline pilots with much higher qualification than ours
I’ve had AP stalls too. Once or twice, FL170-200 or so. And many times the stall warner came on when trying to climb high – that’s normal But to lose control afterwards takes some doing.
It can also happen together with ice accretion IF you were not looking out for it.
But as I said before this comes down to being basically awake and keeping an eye on stuff while flying. You disconnect the AP and hand fly it, using the AI as primary. You have to descend a bit to get the speed back.
Also, the stall warner goes off quite some time beforehand…
autopilot induced stalls have happened to airline pilots with much higher qualifiation than ours
You mean like AF447?
In GA we have far fewer excuses. They had none, given their “training” and “currency on type”.
We do however have some crap avionics, like some “glass” products which stick a big cross right across the PFD when the pitot tube ices up.
Flyer59 wrote:
That’s actually one of the biggest advantages of the new autopilots, they will not stall the airplane.
But you still should be able to recover on instruments. If you just hope you won’t stall then you’re asking for it. Survival of the fittest and all that. And you should be able to use all installed instruments, IR or no IR. It’s plain stupid to ignore tools at your disposal.
Rwy20 wrote:
As with many of these mistakes, I am very cautious to point my finger at other pilots
I agree. However, the key is not to use such a feature as a licence to do stupid things. It’s the same as with assistants in cars. It could save my bacon one day but in my view I shouldn’t rely on it. I should always have a plan not involving a chute. Except in those few situations where there are no other good options, but then it might be a good idea to not go there and not risk it in the first place. It’s a nice option to have, but I’m a bit allergic to that mantra of theirs and the attitude that comes with it.
I’ve had an autopilot induced stall in the middle of a pretty violent CU cloud combined with loss of communication (electromagnetic interference) and the whole family in the back. It went all the way to a wing drop. It happened because I was focused on sorting out a clearance thing so had my eyes on the kneeboard and tried to communicate with ATC through the electrostatic noise. It scared the hell out of me and was a lowlight of my career as private pilot.
This attitude negative attitude towards the chute is not something I could subscribe to. It’s skygod attitude. Real men don’t need it and if my plane doesn’t have it, it can’t be good.
But you still should be able to recover on instruments. If you just hope you won’t stall then you’re asking for it.
I have an aerobatic rating, and about 100 hours of aerobatics. In my IR training I stalled C-172s in IMC many times, in all configurations. I think I can hand fly pretty well.Of course not like a TB20 pilot, but who can! ;-)
achimha wrote:
I’ve had an autopilot induced stall in the middle of a pretty violent CU cloud
That was not with the DFC90, or was it?
I had the S-TEC 30 once stall my Piper. But I saw it coming and let it go ahead, just to see what it would do.
