Cirrus crash near Grand Canyon
- Thread starter gil_mor
- Start date
denverpilot
Tied Down
And another Cirrus burns after crashing... go figure.
Sorry about the crew, of course. Just noticed the Cirrus propensity to burn after breaking the wing, continues...
Sorry about the crew, of course. Just noticed the Cirrus propensity to burn after breaking the wing, continues...
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Unless you have seen some details on this crash other than what was in the article linked, that is a pretty bone-headed statement.
LOTS of airplanes from vitrually every manufacturer burn after crashing. It has something to do with the 100LL that is in the tanks. Oh, and Jet-A powered aircraft aren't exactly immune from the phenomenon either.
denverpilot
Tied Down
And we've discussed here before that Cirri tend to do it more often. Thanks for the insult though -- always a great way to discuss things.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Look, I'm no fan of the Cirrus myself, but frankly, in light of the fact that all we know right now is that an airplane crashed and burned for unknown reasons - your post was in poor taste.
dennyleeb
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 733
- Display Name
Display name:
7DeltaBravo
I agree with you. But like a woman he tried to turn it on you. NICE
just giving a deserved hard time
denverpilot
Tied Down
What's "taste" got to do with it? It's a Cirrus, the reports say it burnt, and we've discussed this at length here even longer than I've been here in the archives.
No one says it's "poor taste" when someone says, "I bet a Cessna seat track let go again". (Bad example but there's plenty of other well-earned or not so well-earned stereotypes by type.)
No one's "picking on" poor little Cirrus by saying a large number of them are consumed by post-crash fires.
There's absolutely no need to defend the type any more than any other type that has a reputation for some other weird behavior.
Since a burning Cirrus came floating down out of the sky with a relatively intact cabin only 40 miles from where I type this, after hitting a towplane I've been on-tow behind, the topic is of more than a passing interest to me.
The autopsy reports on those two pilots still aren't published yet, and I want to know if either occupant of that Cirrus survived the collision with the Pawnee.
(Just so you know where I'm comin' from. Not that it matters.)
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Show me a link with some actual hard data and then I might see some point in your post - but I will still say that at this point in the accident investigation that your post was in poor taste.
Wow, you just wont give it up.
It's one thing to speculate when there is some actual information - in this case there is nothing. I go back to my original post - unless you know something about this accident that the rest of us do not, the only facts here are that a plane crashed for unknown reasons and there are two people dead. The fact that when they discovered the wreckage, it was burned doesn't indicate anything unusual for a plane crash at this point. About all it tells me is that the airplane most likely still had alot of fuel onboard.
That's exactly what your original post implied!
So ***** about the parachute - not the aircraft burning! I've seen a 727 burst into flames after a midair and it killed alot more people than that Cirrus in CO, but it wasn't the airplane's fault.
Cirrus is not a Ford Pinto.
I've seen a hell of alot more melted aluminum than composites in my lifetime.
Thing is they have a high propensity to rupture the tanks in accidents that it shouldn't happen in. They really need to design and install a better fuel cell, it's my only qualm with the Cirrus design end of the operation.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20100204X45658&ntsbno=CEN10FA115B&akey=2
MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Cirrus Pilot
The Boulder County Coroner’s Office performed the autopsy on the Cirrus pilot on February 7, 2010. The autopsy concluded that the cause of death was “multiple traumatic injuries sustain in a mid-air airplane collision and subsequent ground impact.”
The FAA’s Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, performed toxicological tests on specimens that were collected during the autopsy. Results were negative for all tests conducted.
Piper Pilot
The Boulder County Coroner’s Office performed the autopsy on the Cirrus pilot on February 7, 2010. The autopsy concluded that the cause of death was “multiple traumatic injuries sustain in a mid-air airplane collision and subsequent ground impact.”
The FAA’s CAMI, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, performed toxicological tests on specimens that were collected during the autopsy. Results were negative for all tests conducted.
The docket information is available under CEN10FA115ABC
Last edited:
And that is a valid criticism in accidents like low-speed runway loss of control or hard landings where a couple of cirri have burned up.
In high-speed impacts, I dont think that there is any difference in the survival odds based on tank design.
Exactly my point, there are relatively low energy, high survivability accidents that have resulted in tank ruptures where they shouldn't have. In high energy cases like the one at Deer Vally, yeah, many tanks would have ruptured there. Good quality bladders though are the most resistant to traumatic rupture and spillage than anything outside a proper racing type fuel cell.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Well I'm glad someone else jumped into the fray and said it.
I made no disparaging remarks about the pilots, who are dead. Plus anything I were to say would only be one half of the story, as they say...
And, I made no statement that fire was the cause of the accident. Just that it happened and I wasn't surprised at all.
Thanks to the person who dug up the coroner's info on the Boulder crash. Interesting wording, "multiple injuries", but not a direct call-out of the usual clinical term, "blunt force trauma to the X". Usually Coroners are more precise than that.
I have a feeling that's just an NTSB summary of a much longer report, which might have other details. Wish I had time to go hunt it down, but ultimately it's low-priority for me other than curiosity. I don't, and probably won't ever fly Cirrii on anything close to a regular basis.
I made no disparaging remarks about the pilots, who are dead. Plus anything I were to say would only be one half of the story, as they say...
And, I made no statement that fire was the cause of the accident. Just that it happened and I wasn't surprised at all.
Thanks to the person who dug up the coroner's info on the Boulder crash. Interesting wording, "multiple injuries", but not a direct call-out of the usual clinical term, "blunt force trauma to the X". Usually Coroners are more precise than that.
I have a feeling that's just an NTSB summary of a much longer report, which might have other details. Wish I had time to go hunt it down, but ultimately it's low-priority for me other than curiosity. I don't, and probably won't ever fly Cirrii on anything close to a regular basis.
If there had been soot in the lungs, I suspect the NTSB report would have mentioned it.
In a major trauma accident, especially where bodies see 75Gs and up which destroys and tears loose many of your organs, how does the coroner tell which injury was the fatal one? That's often the problem determining cause of death in many high energy deaths, the damage is extensive and simultaneous.
Doggtyred
En-Route
Is there actual data on this issue or is it discussion of a perceived attribute?
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
That's what I want to know.
The majority of Cirrus accidents that I have read about seem to involve loss of control of the aircraft as the primary factor, but that is just my perception based on the accidents I am familiar with and not any specific statistics.
denverpilot
Tied Down
It takes a while to get that kind of hard data. In the meantime, speculation reigns and while it may be wrong, it also may be right.
There's also some pressure to try to "be positive" about a newer type in some circles. Not saying that's happening here, but during the "realization" process about any problem, there's a period where some folks easily see it intuitively and others need to study it for a while.
I'm cool with folks saying they want more data. I'm not cool with personal insults toward those who say their opinion is that the aircraft burns too often for their taste.
All I said was that I wasn't surprised.
If that's worthy of personal insults from the peanut gallery, so be it. The peanut gallery can go dig up some harder data and I'll happily change my mind.
I know it's out of vogue to admit that people have the ability to change their minds at will, as evidenced by the typical political debates in our culture these days... since there's a weird cultural pressure to pick one ideology or thought and hold fast to it even when it's wrong for a particular circumstance... but I'm all ears on this one!
Saying Cirri burn too much on an Internet forum is a far cry from saying it from any real position of authority.
We have to keep that in mind here too. Stifling an opinion if your job requires accuracy is appropriate. I'm not an authority figure nor do I even have a dog in this fight. My opinion means bupkis other than as discussion fodder.
If I were an A&P, FAA rep, or Cirrus dealer... That'd be a different story.
You'd have to know where I sat, before you evaluated where I stand.
How many years did it take for society to say the 70s Ford Pinto liked to burn in rear-end collisions, as one dumb example.
There's also some pressure to try to "be positive" about a newer type in some circles. Not saying that's happening here, but during the "realization" process about any problem, there's a period where some folks easily see it intuitively and others need to study it for a while.
I'm cool with folks saying they want more data. I'm not cool with personal insults toward those who say their opinion is that the aircraft burns too often for their taste.
All I said was that I wasn't surprised.
If that's worthy of personal insults from the peanut gallery, so be it. The peanut gallery can go dig up some harder data and I'll happily change my mind.
I know it's out of vogue to admit that people have the ability to change their minds at will, as evidenced by the typical political debates in our culture these days... since there's a weird cultural pressure to pick one ideology or thought and hold fast to it even when it's wrong for a particular circumstance... but I'm all ears on this one!
Saying Cirri burn too much on an Internet forum is a far cry from saying it from any real position of authority.
We have to keep that in mind here too. Stifling an opinion if your job requires accuracy is appropriate. I'm not an authority figure nor do I even have a dog in this fight. My opinion means bupkis other than as discussion fodder.
If I were an A&P, FAA rep, or Cirrus dealer... That'd be a different story.
You'd have to know where I sat, before you evaluated where I stand.
How many years did it take for society to say the 70s Ford Pinto liked to burn in rear-end collisions, as one dumb example.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Sorry you took it as a 'personal attack' but I still contend that your comment had no place in the thread at this time. I didn't say YOU were boneheaded. I did take offense with your statement.
Here is what you said
If that wasn't inflammatory, I don't know what is.
There is simply no information at this time to make such allusions. That is my point. Based on the information we have, you don't even know if the wing 'broke' like it has in other Cirrus accidents. For all we know this plane could have gone in nose first.
To go back to your Cessna reference, it is kind of like this: A Cessna crashes on takeoff. Witnesses report that immediately after liftoff, the plane pitched up sharply and then descended nose first into the runway. Then people speculate on an internet forum or airport cafe that the seat track may have failed. That's pretty standard speculation.
It is a whole 'nother thing if an airplane that just happens to be a Cessna crashes for unknown reasons with no witnesses and someone jumps in and says - Gotta love Cessna and those seat tracks... There is no place for crap like that.
This isn't personal - if I said something like that I would expect to be corrected too, and I myself have occasionally gone overboard with my opinions as well.
Here is what you said
If that wasn't inflammatory, I don't know what is.
There is simply no information at this time to make such allusions. That is my point. Based on the information we have, you don't even know if the wing 'broke' like it has in other Cirrus accidents. For all we know this plane could have gone in nose first.
To go back to your Cessna reference, it is kind of like this: A Cessna crashes on takeoff. Witnesses report that immediately after liftoff, the plane pitched up sharply and then descended nose first into the runway. Then people speculate on an internet forum or airport cafe that the seat track may have failed. That's pretty standard speculation.
It is a whole 'nother thing if an airplane that just happens to be a Cessna crashes for unknown reasons with no witnesses and someone jumps in and says - Gotta love Cessna and those seat tracks... There is no place for crap like that.
This isn't personal - if I said something like that I would expect to be corrected too, and I myself have occasionally gone overboard with my opinions as well.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
And if you still think I'm personally attacking you, let me know if you are going to be anywhere near BJC around the 29th or 30th and I'll buy you a beer.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Okay, but I can bring the left over PoA / H.O.P.S. beer from the fridge. LOL!Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
I just spent over an hour examining 20 fatal accidents from 2002 to 2006 in the NTSB database that involved Cirrus airplanes. (I skipped any without probable causes, 2 that went into water, and the Cory Liddle accident.) There was no post-impact fire in 12 of the 20 accidents. So 40% of my sample had post-impact fires that destroyed much of the airframe. I can post my samples here or on another thread.
I would have to also examine fatal accidents from some other make and model to act as "control". Any suggestions? (I can only find 10 Diamond model 20 and 40 accidents involving fatalities in the NTSB database, which I think is perhaps too low to use for determining even an rough average.) I presume another composite aircraft using a different fuel tank would be appropriate. Statistics for a metal airplane might be worth estimating as another comparison.
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
I decided to look at the Diamond DA20 and DA40 NTSB accident resports. There were only 6 fatal accidents with NTSB probable causes listed, and 2 of them involved crashes into water. Of the remaining 4, 1 was destroyed by post-impact fire. That small sample yields 25% destroyed by post-crash fires versus Cirrus aircraft. If preliminary reports are included in the Diamond assessment, only 3 have mentions of damage information. Of those 3, 1 was destroyed by fire. So 2 of all 7 accidents were destroyed by post-crash fires.
Alas, my Diamond sample size is too small. At face value, 29% of the Diamond aircraft were destroyed by fire versus 40% of Cirrus. However, if the next Diamond aircraft statistical sample is destroyed by fire but not the next Cirrus sample, then ~38% (3 of 8) of Diamond aircraft would have been destroyed by post-impact fires compared to ~38% (8 of 21) of Cirrus. A dead heat. Going the other way, the next samples could make it ~25% for Diamond and ~43% for Cirrus.
While a case can be made that Cirrus composite aircraft are more likely to burn on impact than, for example, Diamond composite aircraft, my admittedly crude analysis does not suggest a large difference.
Wingsofglass
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 342
- Display Name
Display name:
Wingsofglass
If there is a reputation for post crash fires in a Cirrus, then I think it only matters if the fire created additional injuries. So I would think the data that matters is low-speed accidents such as landing accidents and controlled off field landings. I don't see why it matters if a plane spins into the ground at a high rate of speed whether or not there is a post-impact fire. It's a fatal accident no matter what.
However if an accident would have otherwise been survivable or fire resulted in more serious injuries, then it is very significant. Because of this, it would be interesting to look at the types of accidents that resulted in fires. I agree the sample size for Diamonds is too small. Also, a DA20 is a very different plane than a DA40 and so I'm not sure lumping the two together makes much sense. A DA40 is a closer comp to a Cirrus with similar performance to a SR20 and so I believe it would be more accurate to compare DA40 fires to those of Cirrus aircraft.
Since both Cirrus planes and DA40s claim high g crash resistant cabins and have airbags, the envelope of survivable crashes should be larger for these planes than similar GA aircraft. A greater risk of fire would obviously negate this.
However if an accident would have otherwise been survivable or fire resulted in more serious injuries, then it is very significant. Because of this, it would be interesting to look at the types of accidents that resulted in fires. I agree the sample size for Diamonds is too small. Also, a DA20 is a very different plane than a DA40 and so I'm not sure lumping the two together makes much sense. A DA40 is a closer comp to a Cirrus with similar performance to a SR20 and so I believe it would be more accurate to compare DA40 fires to those of Cirrus aircraft.
Since both Cirrus planes and DA40s claim high g crash resistant cabins and have airbags, the envelope of survivable crashes should be larger for these planes than similar GA aircraft. A greater risk of fire would obviously negate this.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Very true for safety concerns. From ownership concerns, eventually insurance would go higher, and you'd have a higher likelihood of the loss of the aircraft in even relatively benign ground accidents, perhaps. Mix that with the difficulty of assessing structural damage on the composites after a ground collision with something, and aluminum could be why there's so many 50 year old airplanes flying today.
Does anyone know, are insurance rates (adjusted to aircraft value) significantly higher for a Cirrus over the spam cans?
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
I do not know if DA20 and DA40 fuel tanks are similar in construction (fire propensity and the difference in fuel tank construction between one of the Diamond models and Cirrus models has been brought up in other threads.) I was assuming they were. I also assumed any other differences between the two models would not significantly alter their propensity to burn. These assumptions may of course be grossly incorrect.
As best I could determine, precisely zero of the Cirrus and Diamond crashes in my samples yielded deaths due to fires. (I did not review all the Cirrus crashes; I did my equivalent of a random sampling since I don't have that kind of time to invest. There may be some Cirrus fatalities due to fire. If there are, it is probably under 5%.)
Since ~60% of the Cirrus accidents I reviewed didn't burn even when they crashed hard enough to produce fatalities, it seems unlikely there is any propensity for Pinto-like behavior yielding a lot of injuries due to fires started in non-fatal crashes.
However, I'm a third party (who has never seen a Cirrus in real life) just trying to add some insight based on the facts that have been recorded elsewhere. It should be up to those hinting or implying an assertion is true to provide some factual justification for said assertions. Or those curious (as I was.) Anything beyond that is up to someone else.
At this point I do not see anything to support the repeated (and subjectively annoying) assertion that Cirrus aircraft are significantly more prone to fires than other composite aircraft due, for example, to differences in fuel tank construction.
Gary F
Final Approach
Only 5 DA40s have had fatalities. One that was reported as a fatality was involved in a mid air collision and landed safely in spite of losing the prop, the fatality occurred in the other airplane.
The only DA40 that burned hit the ground at a high rate of speed and was either a suicide by airplane or the result of aerobatics in a non aerobatic airplane. The airplane disintegrated and this was clearly a non-survivable accident.
He saw what appeared to be a single engine airplane doing loops over his house. It was very clear so he was able to see the silhouette of the airplane, and the two white strobes under its wing tips. The lights disappeared and only the white taillight was seen. The engine pitch dropped as it was climbing. About three seconds later he could see its red and green lights on the wing tips as well as the strobes again as the engine pitch increased again. He stood and observed the airplane as it made a couple more loops. http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20101213X95210&key=1
The DA40 has a well designed fuel system. The aluminum fuel tanks are protected by being situated between carbon fiber wing spars.
The only DA40 that burned hit the ground at a high rate of speed and was either a suicide by airplane or the result of aerobatics in a non aerobatic airplane. The airplane disintegrated and this was clearly a non-survivable accident.
He saw what appeared to be a single engine airplane doing loops over his house. It was very clear so he was able to see the silhouette of the airplane, and the two white strobes under its wing tips. The lights disappeared and only the white taillight was seen. The engine pitch dropped as it was climbing. About three seconds later he could see its red and green lights on the wing tips as well as the strobes again as the engine pitch increased again. He stood and observed the airplane as it made a couple more loops. http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20101213X95210&key=1
The DA40 has a well designed fuel system. The aluminum fuel tanks are protected by being situated between carbon fiber wing spars.
Attachments
Last edited:
Gary F
Final Approach
The DA20 has a single 20 gal fuel tank in the fuselage behind the seats. The DA40 has one or two aluminum fuel tanks in each wing depending on the version, standard or long range.
There are too few fatal DA40 accidents to yield meaningful statistics and I hope it stays that way.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Nope...
Actually, it's two (standard) or three (long range), according to the POH. Not sure why. Gary, is that your wing in the pic? Do you have standard or LR tanks? I ask because I see the dual tank, but it appears that there's a fuel cap sitting loose in the LR fuel tank filler hole, but the tanks aren't that long - It's as if the third one is still in the wing. Or maybe that's not a fuel cap I'm seeing.
Amen... Especially when I'm flying!
Gary F
Final Approach
It's not my plane. Two or three tanks, it does not matter. They are all well protected between the spars.Actually, it's two (standard) or three (long range), according to the POH. Not sure why. Gary, is that your wing in the pic? Do you have standard or LR tanks? I ask because I see the dual tank, but it appears that there's a fuel cap sitting loose in the LR fuel tank filler hole, but the tanks aren't that long - It's as if the third one is still in the wing. Or maybe that's not a fuel cap I'm seeing.
Attachments
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yup.
And that's why it took someone slamming nearly straight into the ground at full power to finally get one to burn...Gary F
Final Approach
DA40 down in Kentucky. The plane was destroyed but no fire.
http://www.wave3.com/story/15270365/plane-crashes-in-front-of-school
http://www.wave3.com/story/15270365/plane-crashes-in-front-of-school
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
And that is a great example of an accident where (1) a fire would have resulted in three fatalities instead of three injured (they had to cut seat belts and pull the people out), and (2) A Cirrus probably would have burned, looking at the condition of the wings.
Looking closely at the pictures, it appears that the left wing tank is still entirely intact. The outboard right wing tank separated from the inboard right wing tank, so some fuel was spilled on the roadway, and there's a bucket sitting under the tank interconnect to catch any more fuel that might leak... But it's fairly clear that this was a slow, post-crash spill, not the big splash (and associated atomization) that you see in that one Cirrus crash video.