Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56

Thread: Accident recording

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,604
    Bill I like you hangar at a non towered air park. When coming into the pattern or entering the pattern, I over fly the runway midsection. I then enter down wind. I also use a TAS. There has been a couple times on takeoff and climb out I had GA traffic cross the air park mid section at pattern height just passing through. They are trying to stay under class c airspace for class c airspace starts on the north side of our 27 -9 runway.
    Enter the pattern midsection and use a TAS along with your eye's...

    Smart flying is safe flying.
    Tony

  2. #22
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    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.
    Good gosh, Bill. I've been writing all along that Cirrus did some spin testing. I *never* wrote that Cirrus didn't do any spin testing. You're the one who says that Cirruses can't recover from spins. Look at your first post on this subject: "A Cirrus is NOT certified to recover from spins, it would not do so in flight testing..."

    I asked you, "Are you implying that a Cirrus *cannot* recover from a spin?"

    How about a simple yes or no answer? Has Cirrus ever spun the airplane, and did it recover? Their web posting regarding European testing says they did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    What I wrote was that Cirrus is not certified for spins, or spin recovery and obviously I mean U S certification.
    I agree there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    I believe a test pilot was killed during their spin testing,don't know the details....
    Yep, details never matter. Like the fact that the crash you're apparently referring to was a Cirrus VK-30 pusher.

    CHI96FA116

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    I don't know Canadian or British spin certification regulations, but I would be surprised if it met them.
    The spin requirements for Canada can be found in CAR 523.221...which says the same thing as US Part 23.221. I doubt Canada is required to automatically accept US certification; one report I saw said that the Type Certificate was granted after negotiation with Canadian officials. Like the FAA, the Canadian authorities have accepted that the Cirrus meets the "Equivalent Level of Safety" argument. It's essentially the same way the Icon got approval for weight over the LSA limit.

    The British use the EASA standard, and the Cirrus link I posted earlier says that they did sufficient spin testing to satisfy them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    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.
    So the Cirrus is no safer...but no worse...than any other GA aircraft? That's good news, really, for a high-performance aircraft marketed to low-time pilots.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    There are a number of Cirrus accidents, I believe at least 80 fatalities) that involve stall/spins.
    Really?

    I took another pass through my database, opening up the time instead of just ten years. I see 47 Cirrus accidents where a stall or spin was mentioned in the narrative. Total fatalities, 58.

    On twelve of those, spins resulted. Total fatalities, 19.

    Of those twelve, two involved icing, one spun out after continued VFR into IMC, and at least two were at altitudes too low to recover.

    ATL04FA096
    ATL06LA035
    CHI06FA043
    CHI06FA245
    CHI06LA078
    CHI08FA039
    ERA09FA053
    ERA09FA169
    ERA09LA200
    LAX07FA021
    WPR10FA383
    NYC02FA089

    Of course, this is only the US accidents. Them furriners, they just can't fly, can they?

    So we're looking at 19 fatalities over 12 years (2001 to 2012). That's some death trap, Bill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    Most are not beginners, rather pilots with a fair number of hours (1100) even with an instructor on board.
    Of the twelve case, nine had Private tickets. One case was a Commercial pilot receiving instruction from a CFI. The pilots involved in spins had a median flight time of 865 hours, with 170 in type. Lowest time in the spin cases was 222, highest time was a ATP with 12,000+ hours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    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.
    So why not clarify your original gratuitous (e.g, not required in the context of the accident report) statement that implied that Cirruses could not recover from a spin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    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.
    Because I am not qualified (haven't spun an airplane for ~40 years), am not properly certified (cannot fly a Cirrus as a Sport Pilot), and do not fly aircraft outside their published limitations. Nor do I try to goad people into violating FAA regulations, but that's just me....

    Ron Wanttaja

  3. #23
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by 1600vw View Post
    Bill I like you hangar at a non towered air park. When coming into the pattern or entering the pattern, I over fly the runway midsection. I then enter down wind. I also use a TAS. There has been a couple times on takeoff and climb out I had GA traffic cross the air park mid section at pattern height just passing through. They are trying to stay under class c airspace for class c airspace starts on the north side of our 27 -9 runway.
    We have much the same problem here, only it's bizjets! My home field is just outside a southerly extension of the Sea-Tac Class B, and sometimes small jets "hook" around the extension, passing over my airport as they turn North to go to Boeing Field. They're low, so I figure they're not talking to the controller for the Class B.

    This sort of thing actually caused a problem with Air Force Two about thirty years ago; AF2 exited the Class B early to go into Boeing Field, and had a near-miss with a Mooney. Turns out the Mooney had the right-of-way, but try telling the media that....

    Most of the pilots at my home field use a 45 entry to downwind. There's a water tower on a hillside that makes a very obvious landmark for the 45. Coming from the opposite side of the field, I still overfly at +500 feet and teardrop around to enter the 45. Gives me a chance to scope out the existing traffic and flow. Kind of a leftover from my seven years flying NORDO from this field. Guess good habits die hard. :-)

    Ron Wanttaja

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,413
    Anyone can look up "Total Cirrus accidents" and get Dick Collins article that says more than 80 Cirrus fatals ( from NTSB) and that is as of May 2012, a year and a half ago.

    And anyone can look back today to your post at 12:05 and read the last 5 words you wrote before your name, if you haven't edited or altered them.

    As for me, I am tired of the spin about Cirrus spins.
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 12-23-2013 at 03:37 PM.

  5. #25
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    Anyone can look up "Total Cirrus accidents" and get Dick Collins article that says more than 80 Cirrus fatals ( from NTSB) and that is as of May 2012, a year and a half ago.
    You posted: "There are a number of Cirrus accidents, I believe at least 80 fatalities) that involve stall/spins."

    Collins' blog: "Since that time the NTSB shows 80 fatal Cirrus accidents in its database."

    Eighty fatal accidents, yes. But not eighty due to stall/spins, like you posted.

    For those keeping score, my current database (downloaded from the NTSB on 1 December) shows 238 total Cirrus accidents, 96 of which involved fatalities, with 190 total deaths.

    One interesting thing about Cirrus is its high fatality rate in crashes. 40% of Cirrus accidents see fatalities, vs. 25% for the Cessna 210, 28% for the Beech single-engine line, and 28% for Van's as well. The Cirrus' rate is roughly equal to the two-seater Lancairs (43%). The Lancair IV is, ummmm, higher.

    Ron Wanttaja

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,604
    This conversation is doing a disservice to this post. No one is learning a thing. This is not about an airplane but about break down of the system we use, how that break down accrued can be argued but this is not about any certain type of airplane. This would have happened in any small airplane with how this played out.
    Argue the Cirrus debate on another post but leave it be in this post. No one is learning a thing debating it here. No one is posting about the context of the events that happened, but its all about the airplane.
    This is not about a Cirrus or any airplane but about a break down in our system, now listen to it and learn.
    My 2 Cents
    Tony

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by 1600vw View Post
    ... coming into the pattern or entering the pattern, I over fly the runway midsection. I then enter down wind. I also use a TAS....Enter the pattern midsection and use a TAS along with your eye's...Smart flying is safe flying. Tony
    Smart flying is safe flying. CONCUR! As to flying over the runway midsection, depends on what nation you're flying in and at what altitude. Flying over midfield ABOVE traffic pattern altitude first, exiting the area, then entering the pattern as you suggest is smart. For standard left-hand traffic patterns in the USA, please do what the FAA recommends. People, please PLEASE don't misunderstand Tony and fly over the runway midsection at traffic pattern altitude:

    Name:  faa standard pattern.JPG
Views: 3959
Size:  55.1 KBName:  ott1.JPG
Views: 686
Size:  53.5 KBName:  ott2.JPG
Views: 605
Size:  52.0 KBName:  ott3.JPG
Views: 678
Size:  66.1 KBName:  don't do this USA.JPG
Views: 717
Size:  60.1 KB

    Yes, you will hear a LOT of people disagree with me. are any of them from the FAA enforcement branch or legal branch?I f so, let me know, i'll change my advice to "disregard all FAA advisory circulars concerning traffic patterns."
    Last edited by Mike M; 12-24-2013 at 07:51 AM.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,604
    The way it played out in this event, the pilot was going to over fly the airport midsection. At the last min he diverted and flew to the end of the runway. We all know they way you enter a traffic pattern. But that is not what happened here. He should have stayed with the original plan of over flying midsection and then entering the pattern from the other side. A TAS would have told him about the traffic out 1 -2 NM and he would have avoided it without the suprise and then sudden movements.
    Tony

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,604
    In the airplane I fly,EAB, if I flew according to your diagram I would not be here typing this today. I fly like a Navy pilot holding it close. Now if I flew something with a Certified engine I would do things different.

    But I fly my airplane for what it is, a non certified airplane, nothing on that airplane is airworthy and I fly it like such. You will NEVER see me fly and depart straight out, not until I am at 1000', I am circling above keeping the runway within glide distance at all times. This has saved me more then once or twice.

    Now if I was flying over or into a towered airport I would be in contact with ATC and never attempt to over fly midsection unless told to do so. I doubt I would be vectored to over fly midsection but I am sure it has happened as it did here in this event. ATC expected this PIC to overfly midsection and then PIC changed his mind.

    Tony
    Last edited by 1600vw; 12-24-2013 at 08:30 AM.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by 1600vw View Post
    The way it played out in this event, the pilot was going to over fly the airport midsection. At the last min he diverted and flew to the end of the runway. We all know they way you enter a traffic pattern. But that is not what happened here. He should have stayed with the original plan of over flying midsection and then entering the pattern from the other side. A TAS would have told him about the traffic out 1 -2 NM and he would have avoided it without the suprise and then sudden movements.
    Tony
    Mebbe I'm viewing the wrong video. We discussing "Accident Case Study: Communication Breakdown" ???

    At no point in that video does it even hint the PIC of 544SR intended to overfly the airport. Every xmsn indicates he planned for 5R the entire time. What video did I miss about overflying MLB?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •