Sadly, Cirrus Accident Friday

[Bill Greenwood]

Friday evening a Cirrus was lost 15 miles north of Glenwood Springs which is 42 miles north of Aspen. It was fatal for 2 adults and 2 children. They left Loveland, Ft. Collins going to Moab,Utah and were perhaps halfway. I have been a pilot here for 36 years, and Ive done Mt Flying forums at Oshkosh, Sun N Fun, etc. My 3 main points are1 Have enough airplane, thus is service ceiling high enough, 2 Fly in good weather, 3. Fly safer routes not necessarily direct over highest terrain.
Their SR22TC was certainly enough plane, and they were on the route I would go, the had passed Eagle airport, 30 miles back, had Rifle 30 miles ahead and Glenwood just to their south. So that leaves weather. I dont know about it yet, I do know that it was raining with low clouds Sat morning. I had flown the first part of the route , Boulder to Eagle and on to Aspen Fri afternoon, clouds were no problem there was some turbulence, continuous light not really moderate.
Sure hate to see this and especially with a family and kids, No info as to why they didnt use parachute or if it was attempted. Report says ATC lost contact with them so my guess is they may have been on an ifr fight plan. If so the MEA there is 16,000. Highest terrain is likely about 13,000.

[Bill Greenwood]

It seems like there were thunderstorms at some places in the genearal area then, but we dont know the time of the accident.

[Scooper]

More details on Kathryn's Report:

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/09/fatal-accident-occurred-september-16.html

[Frank Giger]

Very sad, and condolences to the family.

Low clouds after the wreck made recovery initially impossible, so the ugly possibility of CFIT is on the table.

It's too early to know what happened. Since he was talking to ATC, he might have been flying IFR to start with; it's not mentioned either way (not that we can expect a news reporter to know what either VFR or IFR flight is, let alone the difference).

[Bill Greenwood]

Frank, the low clouds were the next morning, I havent been able to find out what time contact was lost Fri night, so probable time of accident. I have called the sheriff's dept , no one seems to know, and Ive left my number. When I flew by there, 30 miles east of there over Eagle on the way home about 3pm that afternoon the weather was good vfr, kind of windy but not dangerous. It was vmc at bedtime that night and raining and overcast at daybreak Sat morning.
There can be no situation that hurts more deeply than loss of precious children. We flew all over the country with our two boys, including Oshkosh etc, that liitlte boy could be my Son. We were very careful of weather, never really had any emergency, once had to land due to smoke of a fire. I would probably have made the trip these folks were trying to make given the weather I saw.
Love your kids, never spank or hit one, try to never raise your voice, and thank God every minute that you get to spend with them. The great thing about kids is they have love in them, they havent yet learned hatred and evil from adults.

[CHICAGORANDY]

Sincere condolences to the Makepeace family and friends.

[Bill Greenwood]

I got a call back from the sherriff dept and the time of ATC loss of comunticaton with the plane was 10:07 pm. I dont know if they were on an ifr flght plan or just flight following of whatever, but the info I got from one source was that the last radar report showed the plane descending 800 fpm. I cant think of any normal reason for that and there was not any call from the pilot re a problem. There were some Tstorms in the area within the previous hour, a Glenwood High School football game was stopped due to lighting. No info about the parachute, whether it was used or attempted to be used. Perhaps whatever the problem was it happened too quickly to use it.
Takeoff at FNL would have been about 9:15 and very dark by then , hard to see any clouds with little moonlight.

[Bill Greenwood]

The ground elevation just east of the accident site is max of 12,200 and if they cleared that, about 5 miles more the max elevation the rest of the way to Moab was more like 10,000,and they would have an 4 lane freeway underneath them, and 2 vors coming up. They were past any more 14,000 peaks. Such a sad thing for good folks.

[Cary]

Some more details: the pilot received his private certificate 6 months ago, so he was very inexperienced. He was working on his IR but didn't have it yet. He took the Colorado Pilots Mountain Flying course, in which it's emphasized not to fly at night through the mountains. He was also a member of COPA (Cirrus Owners & Pilots), and had reportedly taken some additional training through them.

None of that explains doing what he did. I have 2 theories:


That he lost control in IMC--and at night, that's really easy to do. A little turbulence might shut off the autopilot, and then he'd be unable to control it.
That he developed hypoxia, not being on oxygen when he flew high enough to clear the rocks, and then lost control.


Here's the sad part: if I was going to Moab in the dark, I'd have flown northwest to Laramie, then Medicine Bow, then Cherokee, then direct Moab. At Cirrus speeds, depending on the wind, that would have added between 40 and 50 minutes to any direct Fort Collins/Loveland to Moab flight. 40 or 50 minutes is nothing, compared to the risk.

Cary

[1600vw]

Some more details: the pilot received his private certificate 6 months ago, so he was very inexperienced. He was working on his IR but didn't have it yet. He took the Colorado Pilots Mountain Flying course, in which it's emphasized not to fly at night through the mountains. He was also a member of COPA (Cirrus Owners & Pilots), and had reportedly taken some additional training through them.

None of that explains doing what he did. I have 2 theories:


That he lost control in IMC--and at night, that's really easy to do. A little turbulence might shut off the autopilot, and then he'd be unable to control it.
That he developed hypoxia, not being on oxygen when he flew high enough to clear the rocks, and then lost control.


Here's the sad part: if I was going to Moab in the dark, I'd have flown northwest to Laramie, then Medicine Bow, then Cherokee, then direct Moab. At Cirrus speeds, depending on the wind, that would have added between 40 and 50 minutes to any direct Fort Collins/Loveland to Moab flight. 40 or 50 minutes is nothing, compared to the risk.

Cary

Yes but you speak from an experienced pilots point of view. Being more experienced you have better decision making skills. He made some very bad decisions. I wonder if talking to him he displayed this lack of decision making. Why I ask a lot of questions to any pilot I am flying with in a small airplane. If I don't like one answer I stay on the ground. Some are very arrogant and this comes out when you speak to them. I try to avoid this type. They are trouble.
Tony

[saber25]

Flying over any kind of rough terrain at night certainly compromises your alternatives when and if something goes wrong. I felt reasonably safe at FL350 flying over our countryside with at least three engines turning and burning. Flying Army single engine helicopters on NVG at night in the mountains of Idaho was nerve wracking and we would joke...in case of an engine failure, begin the auto rotation and turn on the landing light at 100 ft AGL, if you liked what you saw keep 'em on, if not, turn off the light.

Cheers, Hans

[Bill Berson]

I don't fly at night. But Cirrus has a parachute.

[Floatsflyer]

But Cirrus has a parachute.

Two people died at my airport when a Cirrus crashed onto the roof of a nearby building shortly after take off. Happened about 7 years ago and till this day have no idea why the pilot didn't pull the chute. Facts show there was enough time and altitude to satisfactorily deploy.

There might be a psychological debate that goes on in the brain at the time of crisis and impending doom--to pull or not to pull.

[rwanttaja]

There might be a psychological debate that goes on in the brain at the time of crisis and impending doom--to pull or not to pull.

Denial, in situations like this, is common. The pilot just doesn't believe it's actually happening to him/her.

If that aspect is shed, then we get to your psychological debate. Pulling the chute handle is a binary situation: You go from "I've got this" to "There is a problem that my skills cannot overcome." Sadly, there's a portion of the pilot community that believes that the chute is the coward's way out. "Shut up and die like an aviator," to use the old Navy quote.

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

If that aspect is shed, then we get to your psychological debate. Pulling the chute handle is a binary situation: You go from "I've got this" to "There is a problem that my skills cannot overcome." Sadly, there's a portion of the pilot community that believes that the chute is the coward's way out. "Shut up and die like an aviator," to use the old Navy quote.

Ron Wanttaja

Ich stimme zu, Doktor Freud.

Wir werden co-autor fur die Vienna Zeitschrift fur Medizin.

[1600vw]

Ron I don't agree just because the engine goes silent the outcome is death. There are many who have had the engine go silent in flight and are here to tell about it. I am one. But I have not had the engine go silent 1 or 2 times but a dozen times all in the air. Many others just like me. This is not an exclusive club of just one or two members. Heck you may even be a member of this club. Oh I never pulled a chute, I flew the airplane onto the ground. Saying this it does not mean on my next engine out I will walk away either. I am not some super pilot.

Tony

[Frank Giger]

I flew an airplane that had a chute system.

Never once did I ever even think about it.

We're taught to keep flying the airplane all the way, and it's just not taught to be part of the thought process for emergency procedures.

[Bill Berson]

Others might think about the chute and decide it's safe to fly at night VFR over hostile terrain.

[rwanttaja]

Ron I don't agree just because the engine goes silent the outcome is death.
I never claimed it was. I'd be silly to claim that, because I'm still here despite an engine failure ~35 years ago.

The degree of upset the pilot undergoes in such a situation depends on the situation, their training, and their personality. I have been in stressful situations (weather) where denial was a major aspect of my reaction ("It's not that bad...it's probably better a few miles on...."). Even my engine failure had its denial aspects, since the engine started running rough over a nice long, unoccupied, drag racing track....and I continued several miles to my home field as the engine got worse.

This is a common phenomenon even outside aviation; so common, in fact, that "Denial" is step 1 the "Five Stages of Grief."

Our training as students is designed to substitute reflexes for denial. The noise stops, we assume a best-glide angle, start looking for a place to land, yell for help on the radio, etc. We're trained to keep flying the airplane in an emergency. Ideally, we wouldn't have to think about it. Richard Bach wrote about being an air cadet in the '50s, and shouting out emergency procedures as they marched. Even twenty years later, he remembered the procedures.

So when something bad happens, we resort to our training...and if our training didn't include pulling the big red handle, it's not likely to arise in our minds. Especially in a situation with little time to react.

The problem is, 1) Chutes aren't common in General Aviation, so the training in their use is well after a student's formative period, and 2) There is a strong social bias against them. The Cirrus checklist calls for chute deployment upon engine failure (if the aircraft is in the envelope), but anyone who uses one is subject to harping criticism from some elements of the aviation community.

About a year ago, I did a bit of research into Cirrus accidents. Rather than comparing them to 172s, I compared them to high-performance GA aircraft such as the Bonanza and Cessna 210.

Found an interesting result: In reported accidents that began with an engine failure, 37% of the Bonanza cases resulted in at least one fatality.

Cirrus? Less than 10%...three out of 31. And those three were all when the chute *wasn't* pulled.

So there's your choice. You're at 2,000 feet, and the engine quits. You've got your entire family aboard the aircraft. If you follow SOP for the Cirrus and pull the chute, everyone lives. The insurance company will happily buy you a new airplane. If you don't pull the chute, they'll also live if you pull off the perfect power-off emergency landing. But any...little...mistake...and one or more of them are dead.

Me? I don't have a chute on my airplane. But I've been flying single-seat airplanes almost exclusively for ~30 years.....

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Greenwood]

I dont think Cirrus pilots are taught to keep flyng the plane the whole way. I have flown with a Cirrus friend and the check for chute handle and think about when to use it is part of the pre takeoff checklist. I am pretty sure he says aloud to himself what the safe altitude is , I seem to remember 400 ft, but I may be thinking of a glider or maybe its 1400 ft. Anyway its part of his safety awareness and not to keep going down and ignore the chute. Since radar tracked the plane at 98 knots groundspeed and descending 800 fpm to the crash, something was wrong. What it is we aren't sure, seems like he may have flown into some clouds even a TS. We also dont know the state of the chute, did he try to use it, was it found intact in the plane? The debris may have been too scattered to tell much. Sure is sad. By the way, Ive never flown the norhern route Cary suggest but the route this pilot was on is just fine and is the way I would have gone and have gone to Moab. Nothing wrong there, the problem was likely darkness, very little moon and maybe weather. It is also possible, but much less likely that they were not using Oxygen which I sure is built in on Cirrus. Its obviously called for espceially at night but only FAR required above 14,000.

[rwanttaja]

I dont think Cirrus pilots are taught to keep flyng the plane the whole way.
You are correct. Cirrus procedures say to use the CAPs if the engine quits or other emergencies.

Very few people take their initial lessons through Private in a Cirrus, though. So they should have received the appropriate training as students. Of course, without reinforcement, a Cirrus owner might be a bit rusty on his forced-landing procedures.....

Ron Wanttaja

[1600vw]

Ron First sorry if I miss understood you. My bad.

As to Cirrus owners being taught or trained to pull the chute if the engine quits. Why is this? Every pilot or aviator even Ultralight pilots are taught if the airplane is still in one piece fly the thing to the ground. I know this has been hashed out on other forums and maybe even here, but why does Cirrus teach this?
Tony

[DaleB]

Every pilot or aviator even Ultralight pilots are taught if the airplane is still in one piece fly the thing to the ground.
Yes, because if your airplane is not equipped with a chute that's your best chance for surviving. Fly it as far into the crash as you can, hit the least solid object you can as slowly as you can. Don't panic, stall and spin in from a hundred feet if you can keep your head working well enough to crash less severely.

But if you do have a chute, you have a completely different option available to you that most pilots simply don't have, and thus aren't trained for. That option is to simply not crash with nearly as much energy.

If you're probably going to write off the airframe anyway, why not just pull the handle? I'm as much a tough guy as the next guy, but I sure would. I don't owe that airplane jack, and I have nothing to prove. I figure Plan A is to land on a safe runway, and if for some reason that proves to be impossible Plan B is to just not kill anybody -- by whatever means necessary.

It's tough to argue with results, and Cirrus' training program has gotten good results.

[Floatsflyer]

Ron First sorry if I miss understood you. My bad.

As to Cirrus owners being taught or trained to pull the chute if the engine quits. Why is this? Every pilot or aviator even Ultralight pilots are taught if the airplane is still in one piece fly the thing to the ground.
Tony

The operative words above are "are taught" or more emphatically was taught. It's now many years later and you're fortunate enough to be able to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy and fly a Cirrus. Damn straight you're going to use it in most cases. It's a big part of the reason you wanted it.

You ask why Cirrus teaches this. Because they created the first GA plane to have an integrated full airframe recovery system and is a huge selling point. When you buy a new Cirrus you must take a formal flight training program(10 hrs I think) which includes a "how to" tutorial on pulling that big red handle above your head.

If you build it, they will come!

[martymayes]

As to Cirrus owners being taught or trained to pull the chute if the engine quits. Why is this? Every pilot or aviator even Ultralight pilots are taught if the airplane is still in one piece fly the thing to the ground. I know this has been hashed out on other forums and maybe even here, but why does Cirrus teach this?


Cirrus has determined if CAPS offers the best solution to a problem, that's what they recommend, 95% of pilots being above average notwithstanding.

[rwanttaja]

Ron First sorry if I miss understood you. My bad.
No sweat. Remember, I have a rather strange hobby that involves analyzing statistics of, literally, thousands of aircraft accidents. I have a pretty good knowledge that engine failures don't always go fatal.... :-)


As to Cirrus owners being taught or trained to pull the chute if the engine quits. Why is this?

Allow me to turn this around: "Why NOT?"

I have yet to hear any sort of logical explanations as to why aviation would be safer if full-aircraft parachutes were prohibited. The only explanation I ever see is, basically, chest-thumping to the effect of "REAL pilots don't use them!"

Tell me how aviation would be safer if CAPS were banned, or tell me how General Aviation would expand and become more popular if they weren't allowed to include full-aircraft parachutes. Be specific. Show your work.

Remember, there's flying as a Sport...and flying as a transportation system. I'm happy to fly an anachronistic single-seater with minimal electronics and the requirement of mastering some rather esoteric skills. If I make a mistake, or my aircraft glitches, I may die. I accept that because I get extreme pleasure exercising those skills and that aircraft.

Someone who gets into aviation for transportation, though...there's no advantage to them needing complex skills or being capable of exercising 1920s technology. Ideally, they'd enter the designation on a keypad and depend on a self-flying aircraft to get them there and autonomously execute procedures to ensure the safety of the occupants if a hardware problem occurs. That's WAY outside the current technology level, though. For now, we have to settle on a handle that solves most aeronautical problems.

Ron Wanttaja

[1600vw]

Imagine if gliders had a chute. As soon as the rope was cut loose the chute would be pulled.

Seems like we are saying here, if your engine quits or goes silent in flight and you do not have a chute or are not flying a cirrus you are dead. But really or in reality once the engine goes silent you have a glider. It may not fly or have the sink rate of a "true" glider but it is a glider none the less.

Maybe those in power to tell others what to do should be saying...All pilots should have so many hours training in a glider for when the engine goes silent you have a glider.

Tony

[DaleB]

Imagine if gliders had a chute. As soon as the rope was cut loose the chute would be pulled.

Seems like we are saying here, if your engine quits or goes silent in flight and you do not have a chute or are not flying a cirrus you are dead. But really or in reality once the engine goes silent you have a glider. It may not fly or have the sink rate of a "true" glider but it is a glider none the less.

Maybe those in power to tell others what to do should be saying...All pilots should have so many hours training in a glider for when the engine goes silent you have a glider.

Tony
Now it's just getting silly. No one has said anything of the sort. Obviously not all engine out situations will result in a crash and injury or death. If I lose my engine where there's a flat, smooth, safe place to land it's not a big deal. But what happens if that big veggie slicer up front stops spinning while I'm flying over steep terrain covered with trees, with nowhere to land? Too bad, nice to know you. A parachute would sure come in handy right about then, wouldn't you think?

When I'm flying over Nebraska farm fields, I'm not terribly worried about what would happen in the engine quits. Pick a spot, try to stall it about six inches up. But when I was flying over tree-covered hillsides in NC and TN with nowhere to land without wadding up the airplane pretty badly, I worried some.

Your glider, real or hypothetical, intentional or otherwise, regardless of glide ratio, can't safely land everywhere.

[rwanttaja]

Imagine if gliders had a chute. As soon as the rope was cut loose the chute would be pulled.
If the purpose of the glider's flight was to carry four people 500 miles, well, yes. It ain't gonna make it. Might as well pull the chute.


Seems like we are saying here, if your engine quits or goes silent in flight and you do not have a chute or are not flying a cirrus you are dead.
No...but if you're not flying a Cirrus, you have a challenging five minutes in front of you. Is that open field smooth, or are there concrete chunks hidden by the grass? Is a car going to come down that "perfect" road you picked? Is the wind stronger than you anticipate, and will make you undershoot?

I understand you've had a number of engine failures, and I honor you for your successes. But were all of them easy? About a third of homebuilt accidents start with an engine failure. Are homebuilt pilots THAT bad? Why can't they do forced landings?

My challenge still stands: Tell us how aviation is safer if the chutes aren't permitted, or how aviation will grow faster if they're banned. Otherwise...can I compliment you on a remarkably resonant chest?


Maybe those in power to tell others what to do should be saying...All pilots should have so many hours training in a glider for when the engine goes silent you have a glider.

Actually, I don't think that's a bad idea. My own is to require all basic flight training to be performed in Piper J-3s, based at dedicated small grass far outside of urban areas. After a year, the survivors get their Private ticket. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[DaleB]

No...but if you're not flying a Cirrus, you have a challenging five minutes in front of you. Is that open field smooth, or are there concrete chunks hidden by the grass? Is a car going to come down that "perfect" road you picked? Is the wind stronger than you anticipate, and will make you undershoot?
I would say even if you are flying a Cirrus, the next few minutes are going to be very challenging. With no parachute, you have to pick a spot to land if there is one, or the least bad place to crash. Now you've got to either land, not screw it up, and pray there's nothing you didn't plan for -- or crash as slowly as you can and hope for the best. If you have a chute, you have to figure your chances of landing safely, then decide if your chances will be significantly better if you pull the handle. Me... if I had that option... if a safe landing were not assured, I'd pull the handle and call it a day.

Even "smooth" farm fields aren't a great alternative. They might look great from the air, but things are a little different when you figure you're going to put little bitty wheels into pretty deep furrows of very soft earth, at highway speeds. A friend of mine had an engine failure last winter. A Cassutt, over farm land. Sure, it glides... about as well as a piano, I think. While he survived and is flying again today, the outcome would have been much better and the hospital stay and recovery a lot shorter had he been able to come down under a canopy at less than 70 or 80 MPH.

[rwanttaja]

I would say even if you are flying a Cirrus, the next few minutes are going to be very challenging. With no parachute, you have to pick a spot to land if there is one, or the least bad place to crash. Now you've got to either land, not screw it up, and pray there's nothing you didn't plan for -- or crash as slowly as you can and hope for the best. If you have a chute, you have to figure your chances of landing safely, then decide if your chances will be significantly better if you pull the handle. Me... if I had that option... if a safe landing were not assured, I'd pull the handle and call it a day.

Agree completely...this is probably what I would do, in the same situation. Set up an engine-out approach, wait until nearing the bottom of the chute envelope, then pull if I'm not absolutely certain. I'd add 100 feet to the bottom of the envelope for each person aboard.... :-)

The point is, THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE. The insurors for Cirrus owners are quite happy to pay up, since they can buy 10 new Cirri for what they'd probably have to pay for a single wrongful-death lawsuit.


Even "smooth" farm fields aren't a great alternative. They might look great from the air, but things are a little different when you figure you're going to put little bitty wheels into pretty deep furrows of very soft earth, at highway speeds. A friend of mine had an engine failure last winter. A Cassutt, over farm land. Sure, it glides... about as well as a piano, I think. While he survived and is flying again today, the outcome would have been much better and the hospital stay and recovery a lot shorter had he been able to come down under a canopy at less than 70 or 80 MPH.

The other factor here is pilot skill in pulling off the landing. I mined my homebuilt accident database, and found that about 12% of homebuilt engine failure accidents end in a stall/spin. It's 19% for the Lancair IV...in almost one in five cases of an engine failure ending in an accident, it's because the pilot stalled out trying to land with the dud engine. Of course, the accident database doesn't reflect successful forced landings, but those are probably less common for high performance aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja

[DaleB]

Of course another situation is ditching. Especially in a fixed gear airplane, if I have no choice to go into the drink, I'd bloody well rather do it vertically, slow and upright than horizontally and fast, with a very high probability of ending up upside-down.

[robert l]

Of course another situation is ditching. Especially in a fixed gear airplane, if I have no choice to go into the drink, I'd bloody well rather do it vertically, slow and upright than horizontally and fast, with a very high probability of ending up upside-down.

Can you elaborate on the vertically, slow and upright!
Bob

[CHICAGORANDY]

Does it mean trying to hit the water with the nose pointed straight up (vertical) ?

[DaleB]

Can you elaborate on the vertically, slow and upright!
Bob


Does it mean trying to hit the water with the nose pointed straight up (vertical) ?
Think about an airplane with a big parachute attached to it.

With the aircraft in an upright orientation with respect to the ground, meaning not upside down as would very likely happen after a water landing in a fixed gear airplane. Wheels down, canopy up. Upright. Probably easier to exit than if it were upside down, either on land or in the water.

A (reasonably) slow vertical descent, meaning at a forward speed substantially lower than stall speed and a vertical speed substantially less than would normally be seen if the airplane were stalled or in a spin. As would happen under a big parachute.

[CHICAGORANDY]

Aha! Thanks - When I first read your post I didn't assume ditching with a deployed parachute.

[rwanttaja]

Aha! Thanks - When I first read your post I didn't assume ditching with a deployed parachute.
Yep. If I remember correctly, the Cirrus doesn't actually sit level under the chute...it's slightly nose-down to provide a progressive impact with the ground to moderate the forces on the occupants. Of course, it takes a bit of time to get stable, which means that it could still be swinging a bit when it hits.

In addition, the Cirrus' seats are impact-absorbing in the vertical axis to reduce injuries from ground contact. And have airbags in the seatbelts

Ron Wanttaja

[1600vw]

It's my understanding once you pull the chute you loose all control and are now a passenger going for a ride. You have no control or loose all control. It lands where it lands.

[Floatsflyer]

It's my understanding once you pull the chute you loose all control and are now a passenger going for a ride. You have no control or loose all control. It lands where it lands.

Yup, no toggles for directional control, it's not a C-3 or para commander. Just sit back and enjoy the ride in those unique high energy absorbing seats with the full knowledge that you and your occupants will live to see another day fully intact.

Oh, and hope it doesn't land on you.

[rwanttaja]

It's my understanding once you pull the chute you loose all control and are now a passenger going for a ride. You have no control or loose all control. It lands where it lands.

Yes. Which is why Cirrus builds in all the cockpit impact absorption features.

The loss of control issue, so far, is mostly moot. Wikipedia says 142 survivors and one fatality under a successfully-deployed parachute.

As of 15 August 2016, the CAPS has been activated 83 times, 69 of which saw successful parachute deployment. In those successful deployments, there were 142 survivors and 1 fatality. No fatalities, unsuccessful deployments, or anomalies (with the exception of one that is still under investigation) have occurred when the parachute was deployed within the certified speed and altitude parameters. Some additional deployments have been reported by accident, as caused by ground impact or post-impact fires, and 14 of the aircraft involved in CAPS deployments have been repaired and put back into service.

Trying to find the details of the one fatality; almost all the cases involving fatalities were outside the chute envelope.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Greenwood]

Re: sheriff, last radar fix was descending 800 fpm, , 1600. No mayday call, so we dont know have much clue. A dark night, dont think any moon and they are over rocky ground, no safe landing place, the 4 land freeway was 10 miles south. So Control or not, unlikley to survive, except for the parachute. Im dont like some things in Cirrus like no center stick, spin problems, but the chute is like a lifeboat on the Titanic, its life 2nd chance to live, and has been proven many times. And in paragliders, ultralights, chutes have also saved people.

[rwanttaja]

BTW, Cirrus' list of CAPS activations:

https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/w/safety_pages/723.cirrus-caps-history.aspx

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Greenwood]

The Cirrus site is members on;y. but I have been able to get enough info for an educated guess. There is an NTSB prelim report. Pilot about 150 hour private pilot, not ifr rated. 2007 SR 22 with 10-550N. A vfr flight plan was filed and using flight following. The track was over Kremling airport and vor RLG, so far so good, then past Eagle airport and over the 4 lane freeway. All fine except a litlle low at 11,000 ff,. Then for some reason he left the highway and turned northwest, back over higher terrain, and went to 12,000 ft., for 12 miles then turned SW and descended. A guess is that he was trying to get under clouds, May have gotten in a narrow area surrounded by terrian and impact before he had time to pull chute handle. The chute was found intact outside the debis and had not been fired. So it looks like in trying to dodge imic and stay vfr he got too low in high terrain 14,500 would have skimed over that area, 16.000 would have cleared easily. The option would have been to land at Eagle, spend the night or even look at the WSI weather computer there and see if an hour delay might have given clear skies. Somtimes it is just hard to stop when you are on a vacation trip and looking forward to getting somewhere. They were less than an hour to Moab.
P S A credit card if a vital safety item, whenever not safe to continue, use it for a hotel, if the hotel has a pool kids are happy and SAFE.

[Floatsflyer]

Im dont like some things in Cirrus like no center stick...

I flew a Cirrus for an hour from the left seat with a Cirrus sales rep in the right. Being left handed and use to holding a standard control yoke with my left hand, I found the left side situated controller very comfortable and easier to transition to than I thought it would take. With right hand on the throttle I was perfectly at home.

[martymayes]

Yeah, the wx was bad....200 & 1/2. And it was night. Not a good recipe for success. What makes me sad is the passengers trusted their lives to the pilot with the expectation he would make good decisions regarding their well being. That did not happen.

[Bill Greenwood]

the expert that helped me find the report asked to be considerate of the pilot.. A relative could read this and that family has suffered as much as one can and more than anyone should. Maybe the decisions he made because he was a new pilot and didnt have all the info. We dont know what weather briefing he had, maybe a full one from FSS since he filed a flight plan. We dont know if he had any weather display map or instrument in the cockpit, or if he got any updates to weather enroute, or pireps.. its said he'd taken the Colo Ass mt flying course, and was working on instrument rating, As for 200 and 1/2, where is that figure from, there is no weather report at the accident site I dont think, nearest one he passed was Eagle and I dont think it was that bad, but there had been rain and thunderstorms at Rifle.

[martymayes]

Biil, the NTSB website, which is public access, list both a preliminary report and synopsis. I did not have any trouble finding it.

Observation at Sunrise, CO, 16 miles SW was reported 24011G23 1/2FG OVC 002 02/01 3024. In addition, report states Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident, and visual flight rules (VFR) flight plan had been filed

[Bill Greenwood]

I"ve never heard of Sunrise, there is Sunlight ski area which is a small mountain about 5 miles southwest of Glenwood Springs summit about 10,000. That report, if it came from the top of ski area could have been low, also could have been a local ts. The report that Ive been able to find was at Eagle at 10 pm ceiling 5500 bkn, vis 10 miles. The accident site was north of interstate 70 over high terrain, and if you add Ege elevation of 6500 to 5500 you get cloud base of 12.000 which was about where he went. It could have been 200 if the site was at 11,800. And yes, I agree he filed the flight plan, as I said in my post. I read the same NTSB report, ididnt have any trouble finding it either, but is was pointed out to me by an investigator when it came out.

[martymayes]

It is Sunlight that was reporting 200 & 1/2. Sunrise was me mistyping

[Cary]

Sunlight is an AWOS, part of the Colorado mountain AWOS system operated by the Colorado DOT. Its tower is at 10,697’ MSL.

Good guess that the pilot took much of his training in the Cirrus, as the news has reported that he’d had the airplane for about 1 1/2 years but only had his certificate for 6 months. In any event, he was a neophyte pilot. Being nice, it’s easy to say that because of his inexperience, he didn’t know what he didn’t know. Most of us at 150 hours were pretty ignorant, too. Yet it’s awfully hard to ignore that he attended the Colorado Pilots mountain flying course, where he had to have heard multiple times, “don’t fly in the mountains at night.” So why?

Another guess: perhaps the plan had been to get going earlier, so that snaking through the rocks and dodging any clouds would have been possible. But as often happens, getting a family moving doesn’t always happen as planned. Neophyte pilots seldom have a Plan B other than “don’t go”. So it’s unlikely that he even considered a safer night route, which would be via Laramie, Medicine Bow, Cherokee, direct Moab, a route that at worst would have taken 45-50 minutes longer at Cirrus speeds.

It is sad. Their funerals were yesterday. It didn’t have to happen.

Cary

[Bill Greenwood]

Cary, I agree its sad and didint have to happen, But not that going way north would have been the only safe way. The route he took is fine. I have come from Loveland ( used to have my annuals at Ft. Collins Downtown for 20 years or so) over Corona Pass, just south of Granby to Kremling on to Eagle hundreds of times, and this was the first part of his route. Corona is about 12,000 and after than you can fly most of the way at 10,500, 12,500 would have cleared all. No need to be "snaking through the rocks", like if driving . You fly over them, day or night. Just like going east over Corona, be at 13,5 or above, dont be down low and "snaking" through Berthoud Pass, which is lower but narrow. Now bad weather is another matter, and its possible even likley that the weather was ok up until Eagle. A total prohibition of any night flying over mountains is pretty rigid so many pilots may disregard it. It can be a clear moonlit night, smooth and beautiful, but on a dark night with clouds its gets critical.I wish I had been in the FBO when he was gettiing ready to leave, I would have said something like lets look at the weather, dont know if he'd have listened or not, but Id be a little forward if it prevented a lot of sadness.
Aviation gives but it can take away so much, more than almost any other fun thing to do. You get banged up playing football ,even a concussion, and ski racing and knee surgeries are routine but not fatal and not for a family.

[Bill Berson]

I don't think the hazards of night flight are taught well enough or at all. At least not for me. I almost killed myself at night and gave it up.

[martymayes]

I don't think the hazards of night flight are taught well enough or at all. At least not for me. I almost killed myself at night and gave it up.

Yes, it's definitely lacking in breadth and depth. After the few hrs of night training required by regulation most find night flying euphoric. Hazards are not recognized or understood, much less the focus during training.

[rwanttaja]

I don't think the hazards of night flight are taught well enough or at all. At least not for me. I almost killed myself at night and gave it up.
Back in the dawn 'o time when I learned to fly, night time wasn't required. In the ~45 years I've had my ticket, I've flown at night only twice. The second time was in my Fly Baby with no landing light and a lightstick to illuminate the panel.....

Ron Wanttaja

[Cary]

Cary, I agree its sad and didint have to happen, But not that going way north would have been the only safe way. The route he took is fine. I have come from Loveland ( used to have my annuals at Ft. Collins Downtown for 20 years or so) over Corona Pass, just south of Granby to Kremling on to Eagle hundreds of times, and this was the first part of his route. Corona is about 12,000 and after than you can fly most of the way at 10,500, 12,500 would have cleared all. No need to be "snaking through the rocks", like if driving . You fly over them, day or night. Just like going east over Corona, be at 13,5 or above, dont be down low and "snaking" through Berthoud Pass, which is lower but narrow. Now bad weather is another matter, and its possible even likley that the weather was ok up until Eagle. A total prohibition of any night flying over mountains is pretty rigid so many pilots may disregard it. It can be a clear moonlit night, smooth and beautiful, but on a dark night with clouds its gets critical.I wish I had been in the FBO when he was gettiing ready to leave, I would have said something like lets look at the weather, dont know if he'd have listened or not, but Id be a little forward if it prevented a lot of sadness.
Aviation gives but it can take away so much, more than almost any other fun thing to do. You get banged up playing football ,even a concussion, and ski racing and knee surgeries are routine but not fatal and not for a family.

I can't say I've been over Corona hundreds of times--maybe a dozen or so--and I agree that it's a safe way or I wouldn't fly it--but not on an overcast night. I don't think that was his route, based on the description in the preliminary report, but the route that was described there (which I think is more over Estes Park to Milner Pass and then southwest toward Kremmling) is also equally safe in the daylight. I wouldn't do it at night, at all, because although on a moonlit night it would be easy enough to see where I'm going, the chances of finding a halfway acceptable place to set down if there were engine troubles is close to zilch, but there are many acceptable places visible in the daylight. On the other hand, the circuitous way I suggested past Laramie and on northwest to Medicine Bow and Cherokee is safe enough, day or night, with highways visible to set down on if necessary (I know, landing on highways has its own hazards--nothing is 100% guaranteed). For me, flying the kinds of airplanes that I have flown and the one I fly now, no night flight over the mountains is indeed the wisest, even if it seems rigid. And I do love flying at night.


Yes, it's definitely lacking in breadth and depth. After the few hrs of night training required by regulation most find night flying euphoric. Hazards are not recognized or understood, much less the focus during training.

I still have a euphoric experience when I fly at night. My very first lesson was at night, out of Elmendorf AFB almost 45 years ago in a C150, on a beautiful clear night. The starlit sky and the lights of Anchorage all combined to make it a memorable first lesson. Since then, I've logged several hundred hours at night and flown more than I've logged, and I still really enjoy it. But I have a greater respect for the risks than I did way back then, probably caused by reading too many NTSB report summaries, knowing personally about night accidents, and having my own surprise encounters with clouds that I didn't expect. You're absolutely right--the risks, and the ways to ameliorate many of those risks, are not well taught in the few hours of night training that are included in the typical private pilot curriculum.

Cary

[Bill Berson]

Back in the dawn 'o time when I learned to fly, night time wasn't required. In the ~45 years I've had my ticket, I've flown at night only twice. The second time was in my Fly Baby with no landing light and a lightstick to illuminate the panel.....

Ron Wanttaja
43 years for me. If they had Sport Pilot back in '74 I would have gone that route for my 2 seat Chief.