Good point. Why was this post in this forum?Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc
From my take on it. The PIC was to cross the field midway and fly to 42L. But for some reason he flew to the end of the runway and was going for 42R.
Good point. Why was this post in this forum?
From my take on it. The PIC was to cross the field midway and fly to 42L. But for some reason he flew to the end of the runway and was going for 42R.
Would not a TAS have helped here? I fly with one just so I see traffic out of eyesight.
Tony
[Lotsa speculation about Bill's motives deleted. After all, Hal is watching.]
On that note, perhaps Hall will want to move this elsewhere....?
Consider: Over the 15 years in my homebuilt accident database, there are 41 midairs (some of which are two planes in formation), but almost 500 accidents where the NTSB cited bad airspeed control. Rule #1: Fly The Airplane.
Cockpit gadgets sometimes, IMHO, interfere with Rule #1.
Ron Wanttaja
Hal is watching, but also traveling a lot during holiday vacation, so I'm running a little slow... thanks for the heads up.
Hal Bryan
EAA Lifetime 638979
Vintage 714005 | Warbirds 553527
Managing Editor
EAA—The Spirit of Aviation
I meant to put this topic under "Learning to Fly", which I thought was the last one in that column. I didn't realize there was even a topic about "simulation', this must be something new, and I see that it was started only 5 days ago.
Maybe Hal can move this to the learning part, less the comments about simulation.
As for my "motives" , well obviously I and probably AOPA are paid agents of Lancair and/or Van's and probably started the whole thing just to discredit Cirrus. After all everyone knows Cirrus is a special modern, smarter than everyone else design to be "spin resistant" just as their website says, so maybe the whole accident report is wrong and the plane really didn't spin.
Anyway, whatever the cause, and despite the 3 fatalities and any lessons to be learned, the important point is to make sure nary a discouraging word is heard about Cirrus. And of course the other vital point is which topic this is posted under, and nothing so boring and passe as safety.
And as for as a gadget to point out traffic, aren't these usually for enroute and shut off in the pattern? Anyway, whether the pilot saw the other traffic on the long straight in final by eyesight or on a TAS, he still would be in trouble if his reaction was a sudden 60* bank and pitch pull at 100 knots, perhaps even in the fabulous Cirrus.
Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 12-22-2013 at 11:01 PM.
Is the rate of spin accidents for Cirrus significantly different from other GA aircraft? When I say "Spin," I refer to cases where a spin is entered with sufficient altitude for a normal recovery, not a low-altitude stall. If Cirrus' figures are similar to traditional aircraft, then their approach (recovery from an establish spin using the CAPS) would appear to be a good approach.
Actually, I think the cases where this happen are rare, in *all* GA aircraft. As in this case, the vast majority of stall/spin accidents occur at altitudes too low to recover. I believe that's the impetus for the FAA's emphasis in stall avoidance, rather than spin recovery...it's why spins were removed from the Private Pilot curriculum in the first place. IIRC, this is why Icon got its weight exemption, claiming the extra weight was required for improved stall characteristics.
Cirrus has detractors for good reasons, and Cirrus had detractors for damned silly ones, too ("pilots should DIE if they make a mistake, not use a parachute"). I don't normally get involved, unless I see a statement that provably isn't true (e.g., Cirrus never spun the airplane).
Ron Wanttaja
Well, shoot...I *hate* it when the data doesn't prove my point.In-cruise stall/spins happen more often than I thought.
I used my copy of the NTSB accident database to dump out all accidents during 2003-2012 (e.g., ten years) that had "Stall" and "Spin" in their titles. I trimmed out the obvious cases that weren't stall/spin accidents, as well as the cases where the spin was deliberate (spin training/practice/demonstration).
Out of roughly 170 stall/spin accidents, 48 occurred while the plane was at cruise altitudes. I've attached a Zip file which has the raw dump in Excel (e.g., it isn't pretty).
You'll note several of them involved gliders, and several more were skydiving operations (bad CG as the jumpers positioned themselves?). Others involved loss of control in IMC, and several had icing as a contributing factor.
Four Cirrus cases, several of which had some interesting features.
Ron Wanttaja
Edit: Used the wrong filters in Access, got the number of cases wrong. Lots more cases, including Cirrus (Actual number of Cirrus spin cases is 12), see later post for NTSB numbers.
Last edited by rwanttaja; 12-23-2013 at 04:10 PM.
Ron, first of all, you write Cirrus never spun the airplane. I don't know where you got it, but using in a topic to try to discredit what I wrote is not a straight way to make or try to make your point. I never wrote those words or that line or that thought.
What I wrote was that Cirrus is not certified for spins, or spin recovery and obviously I mean U S certification.I believe a test pilot was killed during their spin testing,don't know the details, but maybe they didn't have the chutes in the early testing. I don't know Canadian or British spin certification regulations, but I would be surprised if it met them. Despite any amount of pr and sales propaganda from you or Cirrus, the laws of aerodynamics (re bank angles and g forces on accelerated stalls) as well as gravity are the same everywhere. A recent Aviation Consumer report puts Cirrus in the middle of gen av accidents, not better or worse, and notes that despite the supposed safety features, except the parachute, Cirrus is not showing to be safer than all others.
There are a number of Cirrus accidents, I believe at least 80 fatalities) that involve stall/spins. Most are not beginners, rather pilots with a fair number of hours (1100) even with an instructor on board. So the idea that Cirrus is "spin resistant" is likely good pr, but really should be regarded like some late night t v infomercial. I don't call using the parachute to survive an out of control situation as spin recovery, it is rather a method of a survivable crash.
So if you like Cirrus or own one or sell them or in some way are getting paid by Cirrus, that is your right. The parachute is a good idea, if I had a Cirrus I'd want the chute also.
I am not, nor am I getting money from any other aviation company.
But, most of all, in this topic I was trying to help folks learn from a fatal accident and instead you have tried to make the topic about Cirrus spin safety.
The lesson in brief, for those of us who don't fly Cirrus, is to be very careful about bank angles and g forces in the traffic pattern at slow speeds and low altitude. And if I flew something like a Cirrus or a Grumman Tiger which is known to have bad spin recovery response, I would try to make sure that I was extra cautious about this at any altitude.
By the way, if you are so certain that Cirrus will recover from spins okay, how about going up and doing some and posting the video on this forum. I and probably others would like to see it.
Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 12-23-2013 at 10:23 AM.
Bill while I agree with everything you state, my take on this was Communication. I agree bank angles and such but how about not getting in that place in the first place. If this pilot or ATC had GOOD communication with each other, one would have known the other was not saying the same thing they are saying.
Communication break down caused this. Nothing else. Lose of control from panic was the outcome.
Tony
Tony, I agree with you in part, that the first step to this accident was the time spent and the emphasis on the conversation with the controller with so much attention focused on the possibility of using the left runway. The controller in this case seemed to be friendly and a nice guy and just assumed that the pilot preferred the left when actually he was going to an FBO at the far end and the right runway was even better.
I only listened to the recording once, but I don't hear as much confusion as you do, the pilot was only and always cleared for the right and he said he was okay with that.
One reason I prefer to use a non tower airport is that I can fly the pattern that I want and is best for me and my plane and not the pattern that some controller who most likely is not a pilot is trying to steer me into.
When I fly into an airport, I try to be aware of three main things: first of course is other traffic, see/or hear and avoid, and part of that is if you can to fly a normal full pattern, not generally to short cut it. Next I think about making sure the gear is down and checked as locked. There may be other nice to have things on the landing checklist, but only the gear is vital each and every time. Last, I want to fly a normal landing, that is normal pattern speed and final speed and certainly any bank angle much over 35 degrees is getting into the abnormal category. If there is other traffic, I may have to adjust my pattern or if the tower controller is yakking away , I try to minmize that distraction and still concentrate on a normal landing. If I can't do a normal landing, I may extend downwind or even go around and start the pattern over.
In any event, don't let complacency or a controller or other pilot distract or influence you into flying unsafely, especially when low and slow in the traffic pattern.
One huge distraction is when you fly into a VERY BUSY place like Oskosh, you still have to maintain the level of focus to fly the plane.
Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 12-23-2013 at 11:34 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote