Talk:Cirrus SR22
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cirrus SR22 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
 | 2014 Cirrus SR22 crash was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 August 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Cirrus SR22. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
March 28, 2021 accident
editThis accident was just removed from this article and said:
- On March 28, 2021 a privately-owned SR22 departed Tucson, Arizona, climbed to 10,000 ft (3,048 m) and experienced an engine failure, due to a bearing failure. Attempts to glide to several airports fell short and the pilot elected to activate the CAPS system at 2,000 ft (610 m). The system did not fire even after several attempts and the aircraft was glided to a landing on a rural road, where it was seriously damaged on touchdown. The lack of parachute deployment was traced to the primer. This accident resulted in the issue of a service bulletin and the replacement of the firing mechanisms in the CAPS systems of 347 Cirrus piston-engine aircraft and 26 SF50 Vision jets.[1]
References
- ^ Niles, Russ (30 March 2023). "First Engine, Then Chute Failed In Cirrus Incident". AVweb. Archived from the original on 31 March 2023. Retrieved 31 March 2023.
I added this accident solely because it had lasting effects, resulted in the issuance of a service bulletin and "replacement of the firing mechanisms in the CAPS systems of 347 Cirrus piston-engine aircraft and 26 SF50 Vision jets". WP:AIRCRASH says that accidents may be included, if The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).
In this case this was only not an AD, because the company SB covered the issue globally. This was a significant incident and had lasting fallout. I think this should be reinstated in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps this would go better in the "Operational history" section, focusing more on the service bulletin and mechanical replacement than the actual accident itself. Appreciate you bringing this to Talk. Joey1niner (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- No problem, it is always engaging to debate with you on aviation subjects like this.
- I would be okay with it being in operational history if need be, but it has had enough in the way of "lasting effects" that it really should be somewhere in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for putting kit back in! - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)