That looks like the exact line, low and turning still to the runway, i would have in my earlier power off 180 practices. But I was in a Cherokee Six so much more room for aerodynamic error. Plus I’ve heard that the springs in the stick in a cirrus mask the impending stall buffet or mushiness that we are used to in other planes and that was one of the original thoughts behind the early accident rate on base to final in early cirrus days before CCIP procedures were drilled in.
Cirrus down 9A5, south of Chattanooga
- Thread starter Tools
- Start date
wayneda40
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2017
- Messages
- 682
- Display Name
- waynemcc
- Home Airfield
- KSBA
X-Plane 12 (Mac, Windows) has pretty darn realistic physics for this purpose.
I didn't do an exhaustive search, but I don't think any SR series has metal tanks. They did switch to CEIS fuel senders around 2012 (I think). I have a 2015 with wet wings. I'd actually prefer tanks with bladders like the C182 as long as I wasn't the one who had to replace them.
Ed Haywood
Final Approach
This accident illustrates my hesitation with the Cirrus. It's a beautiful plane, fantastic performance, very modern ... but it just doesn't strike me as a stick-and-rudder aircraft that likes to be hand flown. Sorry, don't mean to start that debate, just an observation relevant to some of the comments here.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Kent:
Cirrus would have had to recertify the aircraft to make such an important mod to the fuel system and wing. AFAIK no such new type certification occurred.
And through about 2013, the fleet was only two fires away from be statistically significance, at higher risk for fire than Mooney + Bonanza. I havent' done the statistics since. That was about the time they changed the checklists to "deploy chute" for just about anything. However due to chute low altitude limitations, this does nothing for the Runway LOC component of fires.
From 2013 (Jan to Jan) 15 there were 19 runway loc's with two fires. There were 16/92 (fires from runway LOCs) from certification to Feb 2015. I now expect the Cirrus dogs to attack. They hate that statistic. It is however, truth from the NTSB database.
By contrast we have the DA40. Aluminum tanks, Fiberglass wrap, between two spars. Only one fire in the entire history of the aircraft type...very crashworthy fuel system.
Cirrus would have had to recertify the aircraft to make such an important mod to the fuel system and wing. AFAIK no such new type certification occurred.
And through about 2013, the fleet was only two fires away from be statistically significance, at higher risk for fire than Mooney + Bonanza. I havent' done the statistics since. That was about the time they changed the checklists to "deploy chute" for just about anything. However due to chute low altitude limitations, this does nothing for the Runway LOC component of fires.
From 2013 (Jan to Jan) 15 there were 19 runway loc's with two fires. There were 16/92 (fires from runway LOCs) from certification to Feb 2015. I now expect the Cirrus dogs to attack. They hate that statistic. It is however, truth from the NTSB database.
By contrast we have the DA40. Aluminum tanks, Fiberglass wrap, between two spars. Only one fire in the entire history of the aircraft type...very crashworthy fuel system.
Last edited:
Tools
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2020
- Messages
- 2,919
- Display Name
- Tools
In order to get that kind of performance you need a high performance wing. It’s VERY intolerant of being slow. It’s that simple. And no, it doesn’t give you sugar calls, “hey, watch your speed.”
It can go from fine to slow quicker than most. After slow, it’s harder to fix.
You can set up an unstoppable unsurvivable situation probably nearly instantly. Answer, don’t get slow. EVER.
KNOWING your AOA is good. Memorizing a “stall speed” is useless.
It can go from fine to slow quicker than most. After slow, it’s harder to fix.
You can set up an unstoppable unsurvivable situation probably nearly instantly. Answer, don’t get slow. EVER.
KNOWING your AOA is good. Memorizing a “stall speed” is useless.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 9,173
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
- Drake the Outlaw
- Home Airfield
- Cartersville, GA
My RV-10 challenges this assertion. ;-)
pfarber
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2021
- Messages
- 1,653
- Display Name
- pfarber
well how else are you gonna learn crosswind landings unless you go out with a CFI and actually do them? Power off 180s and chandelles for commercial is stupid.
Tools
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2020
- Messages
- 2,919
- Display Name
- Tools
I still don’t recommend getting slow!
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
I was with you until "stupid". Getting killed is "stupid". We generally don't practice bleeding.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 9,173
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
- Drake the Outlaw
- Home Airfield
- Cartersville, GA
Curious... Stupid because you should already have a command of those maneuvers before your commercial rating or stupid because you don't believe they should be required for commercial?
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 16,628
- Location
- Southeast Tennessee
- Display Name
- This page intentionally left blank
That IS the question, isn’t it? You want to be out in challenging conditions, yet not be in conditions bad enough to use up all of skill of the pilots onboard.
Also, there is a somewhat reasonable expectation that the CFI will keep you safe as you learn these skills.
Tough stuff here.
Albany Tom
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2021
- Messages
- 5,703
- Display Name
- Albany Tom
I had to demonstrate power off 180's before I could solo private. I don't think it's a dangerous thing at all, unless you add things to it to make it dangerous. If you're in gusty crosswinds, of course that can make it more dangerous. If you're not coordinated, same as with any turn at low level, it's more dangerous. If you try to tighten up the turn because you overshot, instead of going around, yeah, that can be dangerous.
Not saying this was one, but I hate stall/spin accidents in the pattern because they are so avoidable. Sad. I miss Paul B's videos, too. The one posted above was good. 45 degree bank at 500 AGL? No thank you.
Not saying this was one, but I hate stall/spin accidents in the pattern because they are so avoidable. Sad. I miss Paul B's videos, too. The one posted above was good. 45 degree bank at 500 AGL? No thank you.
Ed Haywood
Final Approach
I had to demonstrate a power off 180 when my engine quit. I was quite happy to have practiced it beforehand.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
And then sometimes it's just not predictable. I take care of a retired 121 guy who built a STOL SEL with leading edge cuffs. Those, are tricky.
On short final he had to go around, he put the nose down added power and the right wing slats retracted....and over he went. But he has aluminium tanks. No FIRE.
We are answering the Local RFS's investigative call. Sigh.
On short final he had to go around, he put the nose down added power and the right wing slats retracted....and over he went. But he has aluminium tanks. No FIRE.
We are answering the Local RFS's investigative call. Sigh.
Rockymountain
Line Up and Wait
I don’t think they changed anything. Still wet wing.
Warmi
Cleared for Takeoff
During primary training 7 years ago, my instructor always insisted on every landing being power off 180 ( basically power off before turning base ) and so have been 95% of my landings since then but , alas, I don’t fly very high performance or wing loading planes …
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 28,191
- Location
- UQACY, WI
- Display Name
- iMooniac
- Home Airfield
- KUES/KMKE
Huh. As a DA40 pilot in that era, I was well aware of the DA40's excellent safety record, largely due to its safer fuel system.
What I remember is that at some point when Cirrus introduced a new generation - Likely the G5 or G6 - There was an article from one of the aviation publications/sites the day of the announcement stating that they were going to have metal tanks. I guess I accepted that at as fact and never went back to check again later.
Disappointing. Cirrus has had a lot of fires. Diamond has had very few (I'm not counting the DA20 here, as it also has a somewhat poor fuel system IMO - Fuel in fuselage!) It seems that Cirrus could have done something about this over the years, as it's a major survivability issue.
traumamed
Pre-takeoff checklist
Hence why I was asking earlier about simulator options. An earlier poster mentioned X-Plane, but I was thinking something a bit more immersive with accurate approximations of the physics. The Part 121 guys use sims to train all kinds of emergencies and uncomfortable scenarios that they hope to never encounter in real life. Are there any FFS or FTD options for piston singles? If so, where are they and how much does it cost to get time in them? I'm not talking BATDs. I know Aircraft Simulator Training in TX has pretty realistic Twin Cessna sims.
Hengelo
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2021
- Messages
- 1,228
- Display Name
- Hengelo
I did my Commercial in an SR20, and I feel like I had better feel for an impending stall in that than in a high wing like a 172 with no buffet.
Regarding crosswind training, I'm not a fancy full motion sim pilot - can it mimic the feelings of a small GA plane on short final in bumpy weather?
Regarding crosswind training, I'm not a fancy full motion sim pilot - can it mimic the feelings of a small GA plane on short final in bumpy weather?
pfarber
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2021
- Messages
- 1,653
- Display Name
- pfarber
The latter.
What purpose is a Chandelle? Doing one in a 172 means what? You can perform a random maneuver? At the Commercial level you should have a grasp on basic maneuvers as you need to have a good grasp on controlling the AC for IFR. Landing a plane with no power in 100ft gap? A neat party trick but I think in the real world that you are not going to have that sweet ‘engine quit just before base turn’ scenario.
Remembering the last few crash debrief videos I watched the pilots usually got killed because they made a procedural mistake… not planning a proper divert field, taking off overloaded, not knowing the AC’s performance numbers and stalling or simply not following a written procedure when there is an event. Being able to do a chandelle when you’re out of gas 50 miles from the nearest runway is not a useful skill. Even landing within 100ft isn’t a useful skill when there are only mountains or forest or worse, city below you. An 800ft landing roll is still requires 800ft.
pfarber
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2021
- Messages
- 1,653
- Display Name
- pfarber
To the level of a commercial check ride?
Every student has to learn the engine out procedure see FAR 61.107
traumamed
Pre-takeoff checklist
What would being able to nail a power off 180 within 100' of the intended touchdown point have done to prevent this accident? Or being able to do a chandelle or a lazy 8?
The ability, or lack thereof, of the PIC of this accident being able to do commercial maneuvers seems irrelevant. This is much more basic of an error or set of errors. It was some combination of:
-questionable ADM choosing to do pattern work in these conditions
-deficient crosswind/gust factor correction skills
-deficient general landing skills
-exceedance of the aircraft's capabilities
I would have expected you to make such a comment. I strongly disagree. Stupid is thinking the skills developed from those maneuvers aren’t important.
Same here.
traumamed
Pre-takeoff checklist
I know you are replying to someone else here. Even so, I am curious if you think mastery of commercial maneuvers would have had any bearing on preventing or improving the outcome of this accident.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2019
- Messages
- 828
- Location
- Lancaster, Pennsylvania
- Display Name
- Rick A
- Home Airfield
- KLNS
Demonstration of specific drills are components of an overall package (not just those drills categorized for the commercial) showing that the pilot understands and is developing the skill sets to safely fly and carry passengers. In this accident it seems the pilot and possibly his instructor, did not fully comprehend the entire relationship between bank angle, airspeed, and angle of attack. Regardless of the weather conditions.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 9,173
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
- Drake the Outlaw
- Home Airfield
- Cartersville, GA
The maneuvers themselves only serve as a measure of whether the pilot has developed a higher level of stick and rudder skills than required to pass the private exam. Being a better stick and rudder pilot is the goal, hopefully allowing the pilot to safely extract more safety, performance, and utility from the aircraft.
I didn’t imply that mastery of commercial maneuvers would’ve prevented this outcome. What I said was, the concepts that are being taught during those maneuvers have real life application, specifically the power-off 180.
A large part of the CFI is being able to recognize stall onset, prevention and recovery. I have a fair bit of time flying and teaching in an SR20 and a little bit in an SR22. Yes, you don’t want to get slow, but the same is said for any airplane. It is still hard for me to understand what occurred here and the chain of events that led to this outcome, but it appears they found themselves on the back side of the power curve during a go-around attempt and the gusty/turbulent conditions led to an inadvertent stall.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2019
- Messages
- 828
- Location
- Lancaster, Pennsylvania
- Display Name
- Rick A
- Home Airfield
- KLNS
Or possibly the pilot yanked back and held the sidestick so tight the instructor didn't have enough time or muscle to stop the snap-roll.
My thoughts too.
Ed Haywood
Final Approach
It appears they crashed while practicing a commercial maneuver. If So yes, mastery of that maneuver would have prevented this crash.
Last edited:
pfarber
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2021
- Messages
- 1,653
- Display Name
- pfarber
exactly my point.
but for a commercial ticket these are the things you need to master vs you know,not flying in days that may exceed your aircraft performance limits.
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 28,191
- Location
- UQACY, WI
- Display Name
- iMooniac
- Home Airfield
- KUES/KMKE
A chandelle forces you to demonstrate that you can keep the airplane coordinated and under precise control through a constantly changing range of bank, pitch, and airspeed. It's not just "a random maneuver," it's a maneuver that allows you to quickly demonstrate whether or not you have mastery of the stick and rudder skills needed to fly the airplane well.
Sure is nice when you have a 900 foot opening to put the plane down in though.
Well, considering it sounds like that's the maneuver they botched, mastery of the maneuver is exactly what would have prevented the accident.
That's something you should know by the time you have your private. For the commercial ride you'll be given more complex scenarios.
Albany Tom
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2021
- Messages
- 5,703
- Display Name
- Albany Tom
Did I have to perform it to the level of a commercial check ride, or did I perform it to the level of a commercial check ride? It's not a very high bar. My point isn't that it's any sort of extraordinary feat of airmanship. Quite the opposite, it's a pretty simple thing to do. It's just a landing, not much more than any other landing. It's easy enough for a pre-solo student to do it, and not even a great student. Engine out procedure? That's important, but that's a different procedure. There's no requirement that I'm aware of, for private, to actually land w/ power to idle.
Back to this particular accident, I wasn't there, I have no idea how gusty it might have been. But "Maximum demonstrated crosswind" is not a performance limitation of the aircraft as far as I know. Practicing landings during a crosswind is the only way I know how to improve your ability to land in a crosswind.
I've been criticized, possibly accurately, for being too harsh in speculation. That's really not my intent. I read and participate in these mostly to understand the mistakes that anyone could make, that I could make, that could get a pilot into trouble. I would absolutely go up to do pattern work in gusty conditions, but how gusty is a subjective thing. I have sometimes slightly tightened up a final turn, but not too much...where "too much" is a little subjective. I don't execute a go-around if the approach isn't perfect...if I did, I might never land until I ran out of fuel. The more I read this one, it seems like they pushed some things too far...but that's speculation, too.
That it happened on a training flight is, again, sad. But doesn't cause me to say practicing 180 power off's, or any other standard maneuver, needs to be done calm or gust free.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2019
- Messages
- 828
- Location
- Lancaster, Pennsylvania
- Display Name
- Rick A
- Home Airfield
- KLNS
At some point down low the pilot pulled the stick back, increased the AOA, loaded up some G force onto the wings, and stalled. The error was attempting to salvage a misalignment with the runway when a go-around would have been the proper choice. Wind, type of maneuver, turbulence, etc., were not relevant to the choice of either attempting to salvage a misaligned short approach to the runway, versus going around and trying again.
traumamed
Pre-takeoff checklist
I've never flown a 20, but I do have time in the SR22T and I agree with this. I did not have any difficulty feeling out an impending stall. Wow they get mushy when slow. They also seem to run out of rudder authority sooner than your average GA plane. That said, they are a very easy and fun aircraft to fly. The first time I flew one was not long after I finished my PPL in a 172, and I giggled when I discovered the roll rate.
People forget that "the plane with the parachute" stuff is marketing. It never demonstrated spin recovery capability during certification (without the chute). Note that I am not trying to promote the misinformation that a Cirrus can't recover from a spin. It can, but whether your average weekend warrior could pull it off is questionable. Regardless, Cirrus opted to go with: "The only approved and demonstrated method of spin recovery is activation of the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System." Obviously this wasn't an option as low to the ground as these guys were when things fell apart.
There has been speculation that they may have been practicing a power off 180, but is there any hard evidence of this? I mean, aside from inferences being made based on an ADS-B track? For all we know, they might have been in a "forced" power off 180, or any other number of reasons to have flown a tight last lap.
Hengelo
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2021
- Messages
- 1,228
- Display Name
- Hengelo
My understanding was that Cirrus *did* demonstrate spin recovery when EASA certified it but it was not required by the FAA. I feel like we need a mythbusters on this one.
FWIW: It was my understanding the BRS was going to be an integral part of the SR20 from day one. When it came time for certification, since the BRS provided an equal method of compliance for the Part 23 spin resistance requirement, Cirrus requested an exemption which was approved by the FAA. The EASA CS-23 certification process does not permit exemptions so the SR20 had to meet those spin resistance requirements. As I recall there are several EASA technical documents that discuss this in detail. So it was probably more an economic reason Cirrus went the exemption route vs the test route on the FAA side.
Warmi
Cleared for Takeoff
I wonder how many Cirrus planes they sold in Europe … 5 , 6 ?
ateamer
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,982
- Location
- Port St. Lucie, FL
- Display Name
- ateamer
- Home Airfield
- FD88
Five or six hundred, yes.