Can you legally remove the CAPS?

M

mike d

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
33
Display Name
Display name:
Mike d
I know many Cirrus owners would never think of doing this....
But can you legally remove the CAPS from a Cirrus and still fly it.

Why? You ask. Because I don't want to have the weight, maintenance cost, or the explosive in my plane. But I do like the SR22 and would love to own one.
 
Cirri tend to burn if CAPS isn't deployed, and I wouldn't want to fly one without it. AFAIK the BRS is required for spin recovery (even though they are perfectly capable of recovering from spins)
 
It would be considered unairworthy. I suppose you could get a ferry permit for a flight without it.
 
Sure you can, but you will have to certify it as experimental.

Just make sure you understand everything about the plane before you do it. The plane wasn't designed for forced landing and if attempted there will be a high possibility of fire. If you want to get down safety without an engine on a non-perfect terrain, the chute will be your best option.
 
Short answer is yes, via a successful STC project that would likely be cost prohibitive.
 
As I understand it, the Cirrus will not pass the FAA requirements for spin recovery, so the solution is the chute.

While the chute is a "Band-Aid" to get the Cirrus certified, they have done a wonderful job of marketing it as a safety feature. Which it is, of course, if the airplane will not recover from a spin.
 
MachFly said:
Sure you can, but you will have to certify it as experimental.
Click to expand...

Experimental what?

It's not Amateur Built. It's not Exhibition. The only thing I know of you could do along these lines is Experimental - Flight Test. As in, you're working on an STC to remove chutes from certified Cirri. That also means you won't be able to take your friends as you'll be limited to required flight crew only. And you'll have to do a LOT of flight testing - All of it, unless Cirrus coughs up their results to you on things that are unrelated, and that may not work either.

And when that's all done and you're a million in the hole, you can sell that STC to all the other Cirrus owners who don't want a chute - Of course, if they didn't want a chute they'd probably be flying Mooneys, Bonanzas, and Corvalli. Maybe you should think about the same... There's nothing that special about a Cirrus. If you don't want a chute, get something else.
 
Non Compos Mentis said:
As I understand it, the Cirrus will not pass the FAA requirements for spin recovery, so the solution is the chute.
Click to expand...

Not true. Cirrus didn't have to do the full battery of spin tests required for FAA certification due to the presence of the chute (with which they earned a waiver) during their initial certification.

Later, they did have to do the full set of tests to earn European (EASA) certification, and they passed.

Also, the chute was not put on the airplane to help it pass the spin certification. The chute is there because Alan Klapmeier was the instrument student in this accident. I'd think that after surviving a midair, I'd probably want a chute on the plane I was designing too.
 
So what you all are saying is that the Cirrus is a death trap likely to not recover from a spin and burst into flames. This sounds so appealing (sarcasm)

It probably won't recover from spins because it's CG is too far aft due to the weight of the chute. :) And not being able to withstand a forced landing doesn't make sense. Especially with solid rocket fuel in the back.

The Columbia 400 is out of my budget. The Lancair' rear seats are not usable due to it being more of a bed than a seat. The canards are too cozy and land too fast. The classics are either not fast or fuel efficient. So is the only modern simi-affordable 4-seater the RV-10? Really???

I like the Cirrus, it is in my price range, and it is modern and simi-efficient. But I absolutely hate the CAPS. This is a deal breaker for me.
 
mike d said:
But can you legally remove the CAPS from a Cirrus and still fly it.
[...]
Because I don't want to have the weight, maintenance cost, or the explosive in my plane.
Click to expand...

How much weight is saved?
How much is the maintenance cost?
How often have the rockets caused problems?
Why not trade up from an RV-6 to an RV-10?
 
mike d said:
So what you all are saying is that the Cirrus is a death trap likely to not recover from a spin and burst into flames. This sounds so appealing (sarcasm)

It probably won't recover from spins because it's CG is too far aft due to the weight of the chute. :) And not being able to withstand a forced landing doesn't make sense. Especially with solid rocket fuel in the back.

The Columbia 400 is out of my budget. The Lancair' rear seats are not usable due to it being more of a bed than a seat. The canards are too cozy and land too fast. The classics are either not fast or fuel efficient. So is the only modern simi-affordable 4-seater the RV-10? Really???

I like the Cirrus, it is in my price range, and it is modern and simi-efficient. But I absolutely hate the CAPS. This is a deal breaker for me.
Click to expand...

How about a Socata TB20 or TB21?
 
mike d said:
So what you all are saying is that the Cirrus is a death trap likely to not recover from a spin and burst into flames. This sounds so appealing (sarcasm)
Click to expand...

That's not true.

It probably won't recover from spins because it's CG is too far aft due to the weight of the chute.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that?
You might be interested in reading this: http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/misc/3-105960-Cirrusstall-spinreport.pdf

And not being able to withstand a forced landing doesn't make sense. Especially with solid rocket fuel in the back.
Click to expand...

Wet wing + composite construction. The rocket has nothing to do with it.

It's gear is also designed for impact to be applied vertically up (for landing with a chute), not backwards when landing on poor terrain.

But I absolutely hate the CAPS. This is a deal breaker for me.
Click to expand...

Why?

So is the only modern simi-affordable 4-seater the RV-10? Really???
Click to expand...

DA40.
 
mike d said:
The Columbia 400 is out of my budget. The Lancair' rear seats are not usable due to it being more of a bed than a seat. The canards are too cozy and land too fast. The classics are either not fast or fuel efficient. So is the only modern simi-affordable 4-seater the RV-10? Really???

I like the Cirrus, it is in my price range, and it is modern and simi-efficient. But I absolutely hate the CAPS. This is a deal breaker for me.
Click to expand...

You need a Mooney. An Ovation goes as fast as an SR22 on a third less fuel.

And no chute.

And none of that embarrassing wheels-hanging-out-in-the-breeze stuff either. ;)
 
Non Compos Mentis said:
As I understand it, the Cirrus will not pass the FAA requirements for spin recovery, so the solution is the chute.

While the chute is a "Band-Aid" to get the Cirrus certified, they have done a wonderful job of marketing it as a safety feature. Which it is, of course, if the airplane will not recover from a spin.
Click to expand...

You understand incorrectly. The Cirrus had a chute, therefor was not required to prove spin recovery for the FAA, they did however have to prove it for the Europeans.

The chute was always part of the Cirrus design safety from day one and was a "band-aid" for absolutely nothing.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Not true. Cirrus didn't have to do the full battery of spin tests required for FAA certification due to the presence of the chute (with which they earned a waiver) during their initial certification.

Later, they did have to do the full set of tests to earn European (EASA) certification, and they passed.

Also, the chute was not put on the airplane to help it pass the spin certification. The chute is there because Alan Klapmeier was the instrument student in this accident. I'd think that after surviving a midair, I'd probably want a chute on the plane I was designing too.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation.
 
DA40 looks okay except the wingspan is too much for the T-hangar. I will have to check.
Other than the wing span, what's the catch? Why only ~$150k?
 
Henning said:
You understand incorrectly. The Cirrus had a chute, therefor was not required to prove spin recovery for the FAA, they did however have to prove it for the Europeans.

The chute was always part of the Cirrus design safety from day one and was a "band-aid" for absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

I dont believe that is true either. There are aircraft which were found difficult to recover from spins and were still certificated without a chute. These aircraft were placarded against intentional spins from the factory. I believe the equivalent level of safety is related to its spin resistance, which would involve spin testing.

The chute appears under a Special Condition which I dont think has anything to do with initial spin testing. The one document I found suggests the chute was only a secondary risk management device meaning the spin resistance is primary.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
Not true. Cirrus didn't have to do the full battery of spin tests required for FAA certification due to the presence of the chute (with which they earned a waiver) during their initial certification.

Later, they did have to do the full set of tests to earn European (EASA) certification, and they passed.

Also, the chute was not put on the airplane to help it pass the spin certification. The chute is there because Alan Klapmeier was the instrument student in this accident. I'd think that after surviving a midair, I'd probably want a chute on the plane I was designing too.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right.
 
mike d said:
DA40 looks okay except the wingspan is too much for the T-hangar. I will have to check.
Other than the wing span, what's the catch? Why only ~$150k?
Click to expand...

Cirrus SR22 appeals to the type-A personalities, and they market it that way, and it works.

The DA40 is much more comparable to the SR20, and compares very favorably IMO. If you look at prices of the two, there are plenty of SR20's for less than $150K as well... Even some under $100K.
 
MachFly said:
Sure you can, but you will have to certify it as experimental.
Click to expand...
Only for a limited time for the purpose of recertifying it (field approval or STC) without the chute, and that's not likely to happen unless you have a ton of money to repeat (among other things) all the spin testing. You can't turn a production airplane into an E-AB with a stroke of the pen like that.
 
Non Compos Mentis said:
As I understand it, the Cirrus will not pass the FAA requirements for spin recovery.
Click to expand...
Nobody knows for sure. It was most of the way through the spin testing successfully when the FAA approved the BRS as an AMOC for the spin test requirement, and Cirrus just stopped the spin testing to save money.
While the chute is a "Band-Aid" to get the Cirrus certified, they have done a wonderful job of marketing it as a safety feature. Which it is, of course, if the airplane will not recover from a spin.
Click to expand...
Completely, totally false statement. The BRS was always going to be part of the design from the git-go because of Alan Klapmeier's previous crash in an E-AB which came apart in flight.
 
MachFly said:
That's not entirely true. FAA never tested it for spins in the first place.
Click to expand...
Also not true. The FAA never tests any planes for certification -- the manufacture does, and reports the results to the FAA which then makes the certification decision. And in this case, it was most of the way through the spin test program, having passed every test to which it was subjected, before they stopped the spin test program when the FAA approval for the BRS as an AMOC for spin testing was received.
 
mike d said:
It probably won't recover from spins because it's CG is too far aft due to the weight of the chute.
Click to expand...
The available flight test data on the aircraft tell us you are absolutely wrong on this.

I like the Cirrus, it is in my price range, and it is modern and simi-efficient. But I absolutely hate the CAPS. This is a deal breaker for me.
Click to expand...
Hate away, but your statements about it suggest you are not conversant with the history and facts about this airplane.
 
Both the Diamond and the SR20 are fine airplanes. IME the SR20 is roomier, roughly the same speed as the Diamond, but more expensive.

The SR22 is in another league, and it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.
 
Ron Levy said:
Also not true. The FAA never tests any planes for certification -- the manufacture does, and reports the results to the FAA which then makes the certification decision.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest, that's just details. The end result is still the same. :)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Experimental what?

It's not Amateur Built. It's not Exhibition. The only thing I know of you could do along these lines is Experimental - Flight Test. As in, you're working on an STC to remove chutes from certified Cirri.
Click to expand...

Ah, but this might change.

There is a new category, called Primary Non-Commercial Category, that is in the works. It was proposed by a rule making committee, and the FAA was ordered by Congress to take action on it by the end of 2015.* It could enable the owner of a 20-year-old certified aircraft to switch to "non-commercial" and thereafter modify the aircraft and start using uncertified equipment. The owner would have many of the freedoms of experimental amateur built, but with a plane that is not amateur built. What's frequently mentioned about this by the AOPA is allowing the use of noncertified avionics, but I'd bet the possibilities won't stop there.

Depending on how it turns out, this new category might enable the OP to buy a Cirrus, remove the chute, and then fly it legally.

* footnote for skeptics:
I am referring to The Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013, which references this report:
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...a/Part.23.Reorganization.ARC.FINAL.Report.pdf
which includes the new category, pp. 40-43.
 
NoHeat said:
There is a new category, called Primary Non-Commercial Category, that is in the works. It was proposed by a rule making committee, and the FAA was ordered by Congress to take action on it by the end of 2015.
Click to expand...

The FAA doesn't accept schedules set by congress. In January 2014, after congress had passed and the president had signed the bill, the FAA said:

"A reorganization of Part 23 will implement many of the committee’s recommendations with a final rule expected by November 2017."

From: http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=13672
 
I wasn't aware that the FAA already stalled, but I suppose it was inevitable.
 
Whatever Cessna is calling the Corvallis today should fit the bill nicely. See the latest issue of Flying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top