Another SR-22 Incident with a Less Desirable Outcome

[KennyFlys]

I pulled this after reading Bob Miller's recent issue...

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20081113X13150&key=1

The CAPS was not deployed, and the rocket was disarmed at the accident site. The maintenance safety pin was found still inserted through the handle retainer, with the "Remove Before Flight" streamer attached. When removed and examined, the pin did not exhibit any deformation or witness marks.

Okay, I was somewhat harsh on the other incident for simply pulling the chute and wondering if they even attempted to look for suitable landing spot. In this incident, notice it wouldn't matter if they had tried to pull the chute. There's no indication they did try since the pin "did not exhibit any deformation or witness marks." This flight should not have been happening in the existing conditions.

I'm sure there's a checklist item for this pin. Does anyone have a checklist for this bird?

But, the ultimate question in this entire scenario for everyone reading...

How prepared are you for flight in IMC?

 

[poadeleted20]

The pilot, age 64, held a private pilot certificate with airplane single engine land and instrument airplane ratings. According to the pilot's logbook, prior to the accident flight, he had recorded 721 hours of total flight time, 17 hours in make and model, 56 hours of night time, 76 hours of actual instrument time, and 64 hours of simulated instrument time. The logbook also indicated that the pilot acquired the airplane on October 8, 2008. The pilot's latest FAA third class medical certificate was issued on May 21, 2008.

For someone with no prior Cirrus/glass panel experience, 17 hours in type seems a bit low to be out in that kind of weather without a type-familiar CFI-I along for the ride. Kinda wondering what sort of type training the pilot got -- no mention of that in the report. Omisssion? Nothing to report? Seems odd they didn't mention anything about it, or what recent instrument experience the pilot had.

 

[KennyFlys]

For someone with no prior Cirrus/glass panel experience, 17 hours in type seems a bit low to be out in that kind of weather without a type-familiar CFI-I along for the ride. Kinda wondering what sort of type training the pilot got -- no mention of that in the report. Omisssion? Nothing to report? Seems odd they didn't mention anything about it, or what recent instrument experience the pilot had.

Your concerns match Bob Miller's just about to the dotted "i".

 

[TknoFlyer]

For someone with no prior Cirrus/glass panel experience, 17 hours in type seems a bit low to be out in that kind of weather without a type-familiar CFI-I along for the ride. Kinda wondering what sort of type training the pilot got -- no mention of that in the report. Omisssion? Nothing to report? Seems odd they didn't mention anything about it, or what recent instrument experience the pilot had.

The weather was low, but not terrible:

Weather ,recorded the airport at 1853, included winds from 150 degrees true at 6 knots, visibility 10 statute miles, a broken cloud layer at 400 feet, and overcast cloud layer at 1,500 feet, temperature 23 degrees Celsius (C) , dew point 22 degrees C, and an altimeter setting of 29.92 inches Hg.

As Ron mentioned, recent experience would be key. However, I think 17 hours in type would be sufficient - assuming recent experience/proficiency.

This paragraph is what really caught my attention:

Another witness, also standing in front of the house, stated that she first saw a red light in the sky, and as it came closer, she recognized that the airplane was initially flying straight. The airplane then "came down flipping in circles," including two 360-degree turns, and hit the cars, one of which then ran over her.

 

[SCCutler]

"MFD information was downloaded at the Safety Board; however, the last 63 seconds of the flight were not recorded."

They are vague as to what system this is- but if it stopped recording information 63 seconds before impact, one might readily speculate about electrical trouble.

 

[TknoFlyer]

if it stopped recording information 63 seconds before impact, one might readily speculate about electrical trouble

One might indeed speculate about oscar november mode failure, as well.

...but that would be pure speculation and we tend to rise above that plebeian activity here.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm sure there's a checklist item for this pin. Does anyone have a checklist for this bird?

IIRC, pulling the pin is on the checklist prior to engine start.

There is also a cover over the handle that velcros on. The demo pilot recommended pulling the pin and then replacing the cover to prevent pax from grabbing it by accident.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

As Ron mentioned, recent experience would be key. However, I think 17 hours in type would be sufficient - assuming recent experience/proficiency.

Yeah.

What surprised me is that he only had 721 hours TT (about the same as me), but he had 76 hours of actual instrument. ?!? I specifically go looking for actual, and I only have 32 hours worth of it. Does anyone else have over 10% of their total time in actual IMC? I wonder if he was logging that properly - Could he have maybe been logging all the time he flew IFR, and his actual IMC experience was much lower?

 

[TangoWhiskey]

This is the paragraph that caught my attention:

The last recorded position was almost directly above the accident site, and indicated that the airplane was 30 feet above the ground. The previous recorded position, 5 seconds earlier, was about .07 miles to the north, and indicated the airplane was 260 feet above the ground.

If you lose 230 feet in 5 seconds, you're descending at 2760 feet per minute... ouch. If I figure that speed correctly, he wasn't going very fast over the ground, at least not laterally... sounds like he was going pretty fast TOWARDS the ground.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

For someone with no prior Cirrus/glass panel experience,

I got the impression this was the older "steam gauge" Cirrus... 2002 model was mentioned, and "The airplane was not equipped with a primary flight display, but was equipped with a multi-function display that had been updated to record information."

 

[flyingcheesehead]

"MFD information was downloaded at the Safety Board; however, the last 63 seconds of the flight were not recorded."

They are vague as to what system this is- but if it stopped recording information 63 seconds before impact, one might readily speculate about electrical trouble.

Well, it sounds like he was off course more than 63 seconds beforehand... There were at least 80 seconds between the controller first telling the pilot he was off course and giving him a vector back to the localizer and the last transmission from the pilot.

Here's what they got off the handheld:

The last recorded position was almost directly above the accident site, and indicated that the airplane was 30 feet above the ground. The previous recorded position, 5 seconds earlier, was about .07 miles to the north, and indicated the airplane was 260 feet above the ground.

For the mathematically challenged, that's a groundspeed of 50 knots and a descent rate of 2,760 fpm.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I got the impression this was the older "steam gauge" Cirrus... 2002 model was mentioned, and "The airplane was not equipped with a primary flight display, but was equipped with a multi-function display that had been updated to record information."

Yup, a 2002 would have been steam gauges - First time I saw the glass in a Cirrus was December of 2003 on a factory demonstrator, and 4 of the 5 factory demonstrators there that day were steam, leading me to believe that the glass was brand spankin' new at that point.

The steam-gauge Cirri originally came with an ARNAV MFD, if they had one at all (I'm pretty sure it was optional). I'm not sure if they changed to an Avidyne MFD before the glass models or not.

 

[TknoFlyer]

What surprised me is that he only had 721 hours TT (about the same as me), but he had 76 hours of actual instrument. ?!? I specifically go looking for actual, and I only have 32 hours worth of it. Does anyone else have over 10% of their total time in actual IMC? I wonder if he was logging that properly - Could he have maybe been logging all the time he flew IFR, and his actual IMC experience was much lower?

Good question. I just checked mine: 576 TT, 51 IMC. I had about 220 TT when I got my IR and have averaged about 47 TT/year since getting the IR.

I think I'm conservative in clocking actual time, but like you I tend to seek IMC as often as possible to keep up proficiency (trying to avoid being another statistic) so I'm curious how this would stack up with other non-commercial GA pilots.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Another thing that isn't mentioned at all in the NTSB report: Fatigue.

The plane actually started the day in Buffalo, NY. FlightAware shows them departing KBUF shortly after 11 AM for KTYS in Knoxville, TN but diverting to KLUK (Lunken, Cincinnati) with "result unknown" and somehow they ended up at KCMH (Columbus). If you look at the track, they were pointed directly towards Knoxville at first (of course) and then made a turn to point directly at KLUK, but the track ends southeast of KCMH close enough that they were probably talking to Columbus Approach and decided for whatever reason to just get on the ground there.

What would be really interesting to know is why they diverted. If the weather was bad along the entire route that day, it could have led to further fatigue issues. The accident flight was long - Very close to 4 hours as reported by FlightAware, and 4:45 according to the NTSB report. It's only a 580nm flight, but both this flight and the previous one were filed at an Archer-like 110 knots, a snail's pace by SR22 standards, but it appears based on the time taken that this is the speed they actually flew. Previous flights had been filed for a more SR22-like 160 or 170 knots. Why would they go so slow on this particular day, especially with such a long trip? There's gotta be something more to this.

 

[TknoFlyer]

FlightAware shows them departing KBUF shortly after 11 AM for KTYS in Knoxville, TN but diverting to KLUK (Lunken, Cincinnati) with "result unknown" and somehow they ended up at KCMH (Columbus).

I've had this happen a couple times when I've diverted. The most recent was a trip from Sanford, FL (KSFB ) to Wrens, GA (65J) with a diversion to Jacksonville, FL/Craig (KCRG) for WX. The flight was "result unknown" and still shows no radar track whatsoever from KSFB to KCRG even though I was IFR with radar contact the whole time and I obviously survived the experience.

If you look at the track, they were pointed directly towards Knoxville at first (of course) and then made a turn to point directly at KLUK, but the track ends southeast of KCMH close enough that they were probably talking to Columbus Approach and decided for whatever reason to just get on the ground there.

What would be really interesting to know is why they diverted.

True, but there is entirely too little information here to even bother speculating. My last flight from Leesburg, VA (KJYO) to 65J was planned with exceptional tail winds and a time enroute of some 3.5 hours. I told my wife the night before to plan for a direct flight. We still had to divert to Person County/Roxboro, NC (KTDF) for a bio-break. It happens.

If the weather was bad along the entire route that day, it could have led to further fatigue issues. The accident flight was long - Very close to 4 hours as reported by FlightAware, and 4:45 according to the NTSB report.

While hand-flying in constant IMC for 4 hours would tend to be exhausting for me, I suspect this plane had an autopilot which would greatly reduce the fatigue of constant IMC - assuming it was constant. The FlightAware imagery shows no significant precipitation along his flight until he got to south Georgia, but he could have been in clouds nonetheless.

Still, that much IMC over 580nm is rare in my experience.

It's only a 580nm flight, but both this flight and the previous one were filed at an Archer-like 110 knots, a snail's pace by SR22 standards, but it appears based on the time taken that this is the speed they actually flew. Previous flights had been filed for a more SR22-like 160 or 170 knots. Why would they go so slow on this particular day, especially with such a long trip? There's gotta be something more to this.

Good question, but this could be something as simple as fuel economy.

My speculation is lack of proficiency leading to confusion in the cockpit. ("Why is it doing that??")

 

[poadeleted20]

As Ron mentioned, recent experience would be key. However, I think 17 hours in type would be sufficient - assuming recent experience/proficiency.

Only if that 17 hours included proper type training on both the aircraft and the avionics -- and that would be close to 17 hours all by itself for a G1000 or Avidyne glass panel Cirrus. Even if this was a steam-gauge Cirrus, the dual Garmin 430 system still requires significant training to be understood and operated well enough to be operating safely in 400-foot ceiling weather. Was there any record of such training in the pilot's records? Or was this one of those "I'll just play with the free simulator and teach myself" types?

Also, at last summation, my log shows 8232 TT and 691 actual instrument.

 

[KennyFlys]

Consider how much I fly as an instructor over the typical GA pilot, not counting corporate and charter. I'm averaging around a 100 hours a month. I put even primary students into as much IMC as practical for VOR tracking XC flight. Yesterday was one such flight. I've averaged maybe six hours actual a month the last few months. I don't count time I'm not truly in the clouds. Only one other CFI with us may be getting more and that's with him having mostly instrument students.

So, I suspect his time in actual may be somewhat exaggerated.

 

[TknoFlyer]

Even if this was a steam-gauge Cirrus...

I understand it was.

...the dual Garmin 430 system still requires significant training to be understood and operated well enough to be operating safely in 400-foot ceiling weather.

Educate me on this point. I get that substantially more speed would require some education/adjustment, but if one is familiar with a 430 and coupled autopilot, what is it about the SR22's dual 430s that would require significant training?

Was there any record of such training in the pilot's records? Or was this one of those "I'll just play with the free simulator and teach myself" types?

You know just as much as we do on these points.

 

[KennyFlys]

Educate me on this point. I get that substantially more speed would require some education/adjustment, but if one is familiar with a 430 and coupled autopilot, what is it about the SR22's dual 430s that would require significant training?

That's precisely the problem in so many accidents. A line I've stated before sounds so simple but it's true... Magenta lines kill pilots.

We have pilots who have become so dependent on GPS units coupled to an autopilot, when it comes time to hand-fly an approach, they can't do it. Given the information in the report, the "serpentine pattern" suggest the approach was hand-flown. The Cirrus started out unstable and continued unstable never becoming truly established on the localizer.

If it were up to me, all instrument training would be strictly on conventional needles and no autopilot used until just before the check ride. Glass would not enter the picture until after the check ride. Further, no instrument rating could be earned without accomplishing three hours in actual instrument conditions. IFR currency would require more than an average of one approach every month. It probably should be a part of a flight review for those who are instrument rated.

I know I'll probably get toasted for saying the above. That's ok. During instrument training, I blew off work for two days so I could get a few hours in actual conditions. I see enough errors by those flying in clear sky. Imagine what would happen if the same person placed themselves in IMC? Far too many do.

Recently, I was thought wrong because I said it takes a good ten to fifteen hours or more to become reasonably proficient on glass to prepare for fight in IMC. This guy had seventeen hours. Apparently, that was not enough.

 

[poadeleted20]

Educate me on this point. I get that substantially more speed would require some education/adjustment, but if one is familiar with a 430 and coupled autopilot, what is it about the SR22's dual 430s that would require significant training?

Again, an assumption that the pilot was new to the 430 as well as the SR22, so I'd like to see more about the pilot's experience and training.

 

[TknoFlyer]

We have pilots who have become so dependent on GPS units coupled to an autopilot, when it comes time to hand-fly an approach, they can't do it. Given the information in the report, the "serpentine pattern" suggest the approach was hand-flown. The Cirrus started out unstable and continued unstable never becoming truly established on the localizer.

Agreed, but that goes to the argument on proficiency, not systems.

If it were up to me, all instrument training would be strictly on conventional needles and no autopilot used until just before the check ride.

I have a similar opinion. Of course, I've rarely flown any planes with APs and none of them on IMC flights, so I may not know what I'm missing, but I'd like to think I'd still hand-fly most approaches even if I had an AP. I just like knowing I can do it.

Glass would not enter the picture until after the check ride.

hmm... I can go either way on this one. On the one hand, it does appear we have an uptrending of reliance on technology in the cockpit seemingly at the expense of old-fashioned stick & rudder skills. Still, that very technology makes flying easier and potentially much safer - with the right training.

Further, no instrument rating could be earned without accomplishing three hours in actual instrument conditions.

Frankly, I think that may be light.

IFR currency would require more than an average of one approach every month. It probably should be a part of a flight review for those who are instrument rated.

Again, I can go either way on this one. I personally average a little more than one per month and I think I keep a reasonable edge of proficiency. However, different pilots may need more or less to maintain similar proficiency.

During instrument training, I blew off work for two days so I could get a few hours in actual conditions. I see enough errors by those flying in clear sky. Imagine what would happen if the same person placed themselves in IMC? Far too many do.

This sentiment is why I try to fly actual as much as possible - including as many of my "practice" approaches as possible. Nothing trains as well as the real thing.

Recently, I was thought wrong because I said it takes a good ten to fifteen hours or more to become reasonably proficient on glass to prepare for fight in IMC. This guy had seventeen hours. Apparently, that was not enough.

First, my information is this particular -22 was not glass, but steam gauges. Even then, we don't have any information on training in this or other aircraft or simulators (whether at-home PC or professional).

I will admit it appears he was not proficient. It's very easy to say "he should have called a missed after failing to capture the localizer. I certainly would have." ...but none of us were in the cockpit.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I've had this happen a couple times when I've diverted. The most recent was a trip from Sanford, FL (KSFB ) to Wrens, GA (65J) with a diversion to Jacksonville, FL/Craig (KCRG) for WX. The flight was "result unknown" and still shows no radar track whatsoever from KSFB to KCRG even though I was IFR with radar contact the whole time and I obviously survived the experience.

Yeah, I've had it happen too. This one had a track, though.

True, but there is entirely too little information here to even bother speculating. My last flight from Leesburg, VA (KJYO) to 65J was planned with exceptional tail winds and a time enroute of some 3.5 hours. I told my wife the night before to plan for a direct flight. We still had to divert to Person County/Roxboro, NC (KTDF) for a bio-break. It happens.

Could have been nothing - That's why I was saying it'd be interesting to know why they diverted.

While hand-flying in constant IMC for 4 hours would tend to be exhausting for me, I suspect this plane had an autopilot which would greatly reduce the fatigue of constant IMC - assuming it was constant.

True, but with everything else that was odd about this flight, who knows? And if there really was an in-flight issue that caused a double diversion, be it weather, mechanical, pax, or otherwise, the added stress would certainly add to fatigue.

The FlightAware imagery shows no significant precipitation along his flight until he got to south Georgia, but he could have been in clouds nonetheless.

FlightAware doesn't show weather as of the flight, it shows weather as of right now. The weather for a flight that's already landed does not correspond to what they saw in flight.

Good question, but this could be something as simple as fuel economy.

I've never met a pilot, especially a Cirrus pilot, who would give up 1/3rd of their cruise speed to save fuel. Also, even if he was that much of an efficiency freak, you'd expect to see that reflected in some of his past flights, too, but this was the first day he'd filed for 110 knots in that airplane.

 

[TknoFlyer]

FlightAware doesn't show weather as of the flight, it shows weather as of right now. The weather for a flight that's already landed does not correspond to what they saw in flight.

I'm not so sure. Check this flight of mine from last month. This is definitely the weather that was there during my flight, not as of this posting.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Given the information in the report, the "serpentine pattern" suggest the approach was hand-flown.

Or the autopilot or some other piece of avionics gear went on the fritz and the pilot didn't notice.

If it were up to me, all instrument training would be strictly on conventional needles and no autopilot used until just before the check ride. Glass would not enter the picture until after the check ride. Further, no instrument rating could be earned without accomplishing three hours in actual instrument conditions. IFR currency would require more than an average of one approach every month. It probably should be a part of a flight review for those who are instrument rated.

On that, we pretty much agree. The Arizona folks might disagree on the IMC thing, maybe actual IMC could become an endorsement. I also don't think the currency rules need changing.

As for flight reviews, my last one was almost entirely under the hood. Flew probably the best partial-panel ILS of my life, too.

Recently, I was thought wrong because I said it takes a good ten to fifteen hours or more to become reasonably proficient on glass to prepare for fight in IMC. This guy had seventeen hours. Apparently, that was not enough.

On that, I still think you're wrong. (Besides, this was a steam-gauge airplane, NOT glass.) Do some people require 10-15 hours? Sure. That guy who's always had a J-3 with no electrical system probably needs more than that. However, someone (like me) who had a ton of Garmin GPS (430/530) experience going in doesn't need to learn anything new about any of the flight planning, the basics of operating the system, or any of that stuff as it's all the same, right down to the buttons. The hardest part was that the ASI/Altimeter/VSI tapes required thought to interpret at first - But soon, that was gone. After about 45 minutes, my head was wrapped around the tapes enough that I no longer needed to think about them and I was able to easily hold altitude within ±20 feet.

The reason we were saying you were "wrong" was that you said an FBO should require 10-15 hours of dual before renting G1000 planes to anyone. Some people may need that much, but many won't and you'll lose business if you make up "requirements" that may not need to apply to everyone.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm not so sure. Check this flight of mine from last month. This is definitely the weather that was there during my flight, not as of this posting.

Maybe they upgraded it recently. If so... Cool!

 

[KennyFlys]

Agreed, but that goes to the argument on proficiency, not systems.

Actually, many over-depend on the system. In this case, they see a unit such as the 430 or 530 as their Saviour since it does so much.

I see many spend so much time staring at the moving map, I end up turning it to another screen and frequently to some obscure data screen such as the set-up menu or otherwise. They should be looking at the cross-hairs but they're not.

I will admit it appears he was not proficient. It's very easy to say "he should have called a missed after failing to capture the localizer. I certainly would have." ...but none of us were in the cockpit.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of questions that will never be answered. But, any instructor who has spent enough time watching how others fly, including what is ignored or overlooked during the flight, they could get pretty close to accurately guessing what happen in most cases.

 

[KennyFlys]

On that, I still think you're wrong. (Besides, this was a steam-gauge airplane, NOT glass.) Do some people require 10-15 hours? Sure. That guy who's always had a J-3 with no electrical system probably needs more than that. However, someone (like me) who had a ton of Garmin GPS (430/530) experience going in doesn't need to learn anything new about any of the flight planning, the basics of operating the system, or any of that stuff as it's all the same, right down to the buttons. The hardest part was that the ASI/Altimeter/VSI tapes required thought to interpret at first - But soon, that was gone. After about 45 minutes, my head was wrapped around the tapes enough that I no longer needed to think about them and I was able to easily hold altitude within ±20 feet.

The reason we were saying you were "wrong" was that you said an FBO should require 10-15 hours of dual before renting G1000 planes to anyone. Some people may need that much, but many won't and you'll lose business if you make up "requirements" that may not need to apply to everyone.

I'd say it's about as true for someone heading off in IMC on a pair of 430s. There's an awful lot of information available in such a system. Couple that with the data dumped into an MFD, it's most likely more than they are proficient in.

Yes, it had "steam" gages. I call them analog or conventional. But, it was a more complex aircraft panel than just the usual six-pack on a conventional panel.

Also, I said some FBOs require that. Westwind at DVT has such a requirement. I'm also referring to someone who has gone to their first glass panel and wants to fly it in IMC. It's a whole different critter.

As far as the "lose business" part, if it means more to a pilot to just get done so they can rent, I have to wonder what else they rush through in their flying? I wouldn't want to rent to such pilots. I'd be in business to rent planes and stay in business for the long term; not simply rent and put planes at risk without knowing the skill of those renting.

I'm basing this on what I witness in those I observe. Sorry, I won't waiver on this one.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'd say it's about as true for someone heading off in IMC on a pair of 430s.

How are two 430's any different than one?

I'm not saying that some person who's never even used a computer can be ready to go in an hour. I'm saying that a requirement of 10-15 hours for people who are already familiar with a system or a similar system is ludicrous.

There's an awful lot of information available in such a system. Couple that with the data dumped into an MFD, it's most likely more than they are proficient in.

It's still an airplane. It still has a yoke, engine controls, and rudder pedals. Once you can enter and modify a flight plan, and find the various pages, what else is *needed*?

Yes, it had "steam" gages. I call them analog or conventional. But, it was a more complex aircraft panel than just the usual six-pack on a conventional panel.

But no more complex than the 182 I fly on a regular basis, really. So if I were to want to fly that airplane, you think I'd need 10-15 hours to "get" the avionics that are basically identical to what I already have?

Also, I said some FBOs require that. Westwind at DVT has such a requirement.

No, they do not have any such requirement. From their web site:

It's easier than you might think to get checked out in our G1000 172.

Step 1: Show evidence of completing the VFR portion of one of the computer based training programs. We have the Max Trescott course available in our Pilot shop for $99.95.

Step 2: Complete two shorts flights with a G1000 flight instructor.
Note: The flight checkout is proficiency based. Our goal is to ensure you receive enough training to safely operate the G1000 aircraft in day VFR conditions. While two short flights are sufficient for most pilots, some people will require additional training.

The only 10-hour requirement I can find is to rent the G1000 T182T which requires *either* 10 hours of G1000 time (which could be in a 172 or whatever) and 10 hours of Turbo 182 time (which could be in an old steam-gauge T182); OR 6 hours in the T182T with an instructor.

Nowhere does it say that they need 10 hours just for the G1000. 6 hours to get checked out in a high-performance turbocharged airplane *AND* the G1000 is reasonable. Or, "two short flights" to get checked out in the G1000 172.

As far as the "lose business" part, if it means more to a pilot to just get done so they can rent, I have to wonder what else they rush through in their flying? I wouldn't want to rent to such pilots. I'd be in business to rent planes and stay in business for the long term; not simply rent and put planes at risk without knowing the skill of those renting.

I never said that. What I said is that if someone can show that they have sufficient knowledge of a given avionics package to safely fly with it, there is no need for a required 10-15 hours, period. At that point, it means that you cannot evaluate their knowledge of said systems in less than 10-15 hours, which IMHO means you're a really shoddy instructor.

FWIW, when I called up and inquired about renting a G1000 182 from an FBO, they asked how much G1000 time I had (about 2 hours, part in a Frasca 141 sim and part in a DA40, none in any kind of Cessna) and how much 182 time I had (50 hours). That was good enough for them to let me rent a G1000 182 with a simple checkout flight and signoff from their CFI. The checkout was 1.1 hours, and I flew it around for about another 6 and change that day. That FBO went with reasonable care instead of mandated requirements, and they got over $1000 in revenue from me that day. I'd happily go back.

On the other hand, there's an FBO that I checked into a while back, and I looked at their requirements on their web site and was horrified. EVERY cross country flight requires a review of your flight planning by one of their CFI's - Even if you're an ATP with 30,000 hours, some little peon 400-hour CFI has to review your flight planning (whatever happened to "I'm going to fly an hour for a $100 hamburger?") Oh, and if any changes happen to your plan you have to call in. Even after you're instrument rated, or even if you're with one of their CFII's, you are not allowed to cruise in actual - Punch up through the deck to clear on top, and punch back down through, with no instrument approaches allowed (actually, it's changed - I just looked and their latest policy is that you may fly IFR only in MVFR conditions, no true actual AT ALL is allowed). If you sign out the plane for more than 4 hours, they bill you for 3 hours of those 4. NO grass fields, ever. In fact, you're not allowed to land on runways less than 3,000 feet. Only 60 days allowed between rentals or you need a re-check.

Needless to say, they never even got a phone call from me, and they never will.

 

[gprellwitz]

The only 10-hour requirement I can find is to rent the G1000 T182T which requires *either* 10 hours of G1000 time (which could be in a 172 or whatever) and 10 hours of Turbo 182 time (which could be in an old steam-gauge T182); OR 6 hours in the T182T with an instructor.

Nowhere does it say that they need 10 hours just for the G1000. 6 hours to get checked out in a high-performance turbocharged airplane *AND* the G1000 is reasonable. Or, "two short flights" to get checked out in the G1000 172.

FWIW, I got checked out in their T182T G-1000 based on a relatively quick proficiency check and showing that I had more than ten hours each of G-1000 and T182 time. The G1000 was mostly DA40, with some C172. IOW, they were going by what they said on the website and what you quoted above.

 

[KennyFlys]

I've been speaking to being proficient on glass in IMC. I'm pretty confident most any pilot can get turned loose in VMC on glass after a couple flights. They are two, entirely different animals.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I've been speaking to being proficient on glass in IMC. I'm pretty confident most any pilot can get turned loose in VMC on glass after a couple flights. They are two, entirely different animals.

On that, we can agree. After talking in chat, it sounds like you are talking average times to demonstrate proficiency, not actual requirements. That's fine - I don't think everyone can just jump into one of these things. I just don't like artificial requirements for those of us who can.

Sounds like they agreed, Grant!

 

[RMCN172RG]

The accident site was mostly contained in the front yard of a home. Transmission lines in front of the home were cut a frayed. Two automobiles that had been parked in the driveway were damaged, and displaced off to the left side. The automobile that had been nearest the street had its engine compartment crushed downwards and outwards on the right side. The airplane was located further to the left of the automobiles, upside down.

The way I read the description he hit a high tension line and went from straight and level to straight Vertical.

Sounds like he decided to Go around just a little late.

 

[KennyFlys]

The way I read the description he hit a high tension line and went from straight and level to straight Vertical.

Sounds like he decided to Go around just a little late.

From the NTSB Report:

A hand held GPS (global positioning system) unit that was recovered from the airplane was downloaded at the Safety Board. When the positions were plotted over the inbound course, they revealed that the airplane initially joined the localizer, before veering off to the right about 5 nautical miles (nm) from the airport. The airplane then flew a serpentine pattern for the next 2 miles, finally turning south before the GPS stopped recording.

And...

After the pilot contacted Tallahassee Tower, the controller cleared him to land, and reported the winds from 170 degrees at 6 knots. About 1 minute, 20 seconds later, the controller advised the pilot that he was right of course, and to fly heading 240 to rejoin the localizer. The pilot did not initially respond, and the controller repeated the instruction, after which, the pilot acknowledged.

Given how much he was getting off the localizer and that you're usually at or beyond the FAF by the time you're handed off to the tower, he was worse than unstable. One could say the tower controller could have revoked his landing clearance and sent him around to reestablish.

That would have been a prudent move on the controller's part given the Cirrus was so far off when very close in. I don't know what precedent or information exist in the FAA Orders regarding such a decision though if it exist, it's probably in 7110.65S.

The report does not specify the exact location of the accident site. I tried to get more specific accident location information but the article from that crash is already in archives which they charge for. In looking at Google maps, I see one possible transmission line about 1.3-1.4 miles out crossing the course line with houses just beyond that. If he hit that or otherwise still so far out, he should have gone missed.

All the things I'm saying here is certainly "Monday morning armchair" speculation. All I'm doing is looking at what could have been done differently to cut the link in this chain before it got too long. There were a lot of things that could have been changed; chief of which more of and more intense training than was received. On that one, no pilot could ever go wrong.

 

[TMetzinger]

On that, we can agree. After talking in chat, it sounds like you are talking average times to demonstrate proficiency, not actual requirements. That's fine - I don't think everyone can just jump into one of these things. I just don't like artificial requirements for those of us who can.

Sounds like they agreed, Grant!

We had a Cessna FITS training syllabus for the G1000. It had a certain set of tasks for VFR and IFR transitions, and while there was a guesstimate of time required, the important thing was passing the "practical" test of the scenarios. I'd had some experience with Glass and spent time with the G1000 sim, and was able to get the IFR/VFR signoff in three flights and four hours total time. I know that the time required varies widely, and mine was on the shorter side of the scale. Taking 10 hours or more for folks who are not proficient with Garmin GPS, or autopilots, or electronic displays is not at all uncommon.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

We had a Cessna FITS training syllabus for the G1000. It had a certain set of tasks for VFR and IFR transitions, and while there was a guesstimate of time required, the important thing was passing the "practical" test of the scenarios. I'd had some experience with Glass and spent time with the G1000 sim, and was able to get the IFR/VFR signoff in three flights and four hours total time. I know that the time required varies widely, and mine was on the shorter side of the scale. Taking 10 hours or more for folks who are not proficient with Garmin GPS, or autopilots, or electronic displays is not at all uncommon.

The scenario-based training, coupled with a good read of the manuals and practice with the sim, are best.

If you fly the G1000, Philip Greenspun's G1000 training/checkride pages outline the scenario-based items he expects students to be able to pass before renting the DA40. It makes a good review for all G1000 pilots:

http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/g1000-checkride

and

http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/g1000-training

 

[wabower]

One of the big insurers (I think it was AIG but not sure) announced within the past year that they did not consider steam gage 182 time as time-in-type for the glass panel airplanes.

 

[poadeleted20]

One of the big insurers (I think it was AIG but not sure) announced within the past year that they did not consider steam gage 182 time as time-in-type for the glass panel airplanes.

I wonder if they'd accept G1000 time in a 172 plus steam-gauge 182 time for a G1000 182?

 

[wabower]

I wonder if they'd accept G1000 time in a 172 plus steam-gauge 182 time for a G1000 182?

Dunno. The TAA issue had their knickers in a knot, and I don't know how they resolved it. The notice I saw came from one of the big aviation insurance agencies (or brokers, can't remember which) and since I wasn't interested I didn't follow up to see if they made it stick or if the competition forced them to modify their position.

A number of local pilots were asking how hard the insurance company thought it must be to operate a 2-tube EFIS.