Ibra wrote:
you won’t see many people spining TBx0, even stalls gets ugly…
I’m not for a moment going to try and spin the TB10 because it isn’t approved for it, but the stall is totally benign. It’s almost impossible to get it to do anything, so I imagine that to spin it accidentally you’d have to get seriously careless.
arj1 wrote:
Cirrus demonstrated that it can successfully recover from spin
Yes it surely does, it has an elevator & rudder but most Cirrus instructors will not do you asymetric stall, loaded turn stall, wing drops…the SR2x approved transition training covers power off/on stall, autpilot stall and slow flight plus steep turns, there are no accelerated stalls, incipient spins, wing drops…but you can try yourself in spare time, the backup plan is the approved BRS procedure
To be fair, it’s the same thing in most non-aero touring types, you won’t see many people spining TBx0, even stalls gets ugly…
Graham wrote:
Or is the rumour true that it wouldn’t have passed certification on spin recovery if it didn’t have the chute?
I heard it is not true – after SRxx were certified in the US with ELOS (Equivalent Levels Of Safety), in Europe it was not acceptable so apparently Cirrus demonstrated that it can successfully recover from spin…
Graham wrote:
Or is the rumour true that it wouldn’t have passed certification on spin recovery if it didn’t have the chute?
Just ask your favourite CSIP FI to do you a wing drop demo not Cirrus specific though, load of touring types should not go anywhere near a spin !
(wrong thread)
I guess it’s considered an integral (safety) feature and allowing some planes to fly with expired/deactivated/removed or whatever chute is a can of worms.
Snoopy wrote:
It’s in the airworthiness limitations (Section 4 of the DAH AMM and in the TCDS).Without Chute, the Cirrus is grounded.
What is the logic behind that?
It implies that if the pilot doesn’t have the option of pulling the chute, the Cirrus is unsafe. Or is the rumour true that it wouldn’t have passed certification on spin recovery if it didn’t have the chute?
I don’t think there is any one operator under NCO who uses a MEL (for clarification, I’m not talking about looking at the POH/AFM equipment list, but about real MEL procedures „CAT Style“).
There’s an interesting exception though, stemming from SPA, eg to get RVSM approval. The authority requires a MEL to issue RVSM SPA, but they cannot approve the MEL for NCO. Essentially it creates a tiny overlap of operating procedure for NCO with CAT, without any authority stamp on the paperwork. Ask me how I know it ;)
Back to topic, again as posted in reply #2, SAS in NL has a good rep.
There’s also a nice outfit at LIKO. Urbe at LOAN does Cirrus too. One or two are in the Czech Republic.
I wouldn’t take my business to Cirrus Germany. I was AOG with a fuel pump problem close to Berlin and had them on the phone, when the guy asked me to hold the line and I then heard him speak to his colleague
Cirrus Germany Guy 1: „Hey, do we have fuel pump part number xyz in stock“
Cirrus Germany Guy 2: „Yes, one is here“
CG1 guy then told me „Sorry, we’re out of stock“.
I told him I heard they have one, to which he answered „Well, yes, but not for you, only for our regular customers“. The guy obviously didn’t understand the idea of a service center network which should provide a benefit to Cirrus pilots. . . sigh.
The Cirrus website lists all service centers, I’d call them and go from there (one can usually get a good feeling about a shop just from the initial contact experience).
Snoopy wrote:
MEL doesn’t apply to EASA NCO
It permissible, but not necessary, to use a MEL with part-NCO — NCO.GEN.155 and NCO.IDE.A.105(a).
MEL doesn’t apply to EASA NCO.
It’s in the airworthiness limitations (Section 4 of the DAH AMM and in the TCDS).
Without Chute, the Cirrus is grounded.