Cirrus down in SC

nddons

nddons

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
13,304
Location
Waukesha County, WI
Display Name
Display name:
Stan
Updated: September 11, 2009, 1:11 PM ET
Beck dies in plane crash

CommentEmailPrintShare
Associated Press
ROCK HILL, S.C. -- A North Carolina businessman who was a co-owner of the Charlotte Bobcats has died in a single-engine plane crash.
Authorities say 49-year-old William "Skipper" Beck of Charlotte, N.C., died in the crash around 7:15 a.m. Friday at a local airport in South Carolina just across the state line from Charlotte.
The York County coroner and the Federal Aviation Administration say Beck was the only person aboard the Cirrus SR22.
Witnesses say the plane returned shortly after takeoff but crashed as it tried to land and caught fire.
An Internet flight tracking site says the plane flew from New Jersey to Rock Hill on Wednesday.
Bobcats owner Robert L. Johnson issued a statement saying that Beck was instrumental in bringing the NBA team to the area.
Click to expand...

Damn. I used to fly out of Rock Hill fairly frequently.
 
mmmm this would seem to be the second " landing" crash in just a few months. Of course who knows what phase of landing it was.
 
Is it just me, or did it get your attention that the plane broke up into pretty small pieces? It sounds as it this thing really came apart, and the pictures seem to bear that out. Would that be from impact?

Best,

Dave
 
N5571Q said:
The photos in the article are pretty horrific.
Click to expand...

Yeah I could have lived my life without seeing 5 people with biohazard bags and nitrile gloves picking up itty bitty pieces of the poor guy off the taxiway.
 
Holy crap, that thing more or less disintegrated.
 
Only a few more before we can statistically see that the Cirri are just much more prone to burn in a crash than A36+Mooney. Klapmeiers better get cracking on changing the tank design....before the lawyers cashier them out.
 
bbchien said:
Only a few more before we can statistically see that the Cirri are just much more prone to burn in a crash than A36+Mooney. Klapmeiers better get cracking on changing the tank design....before the lawyers cashier them out.
Click to expand...

Do you know if anyone has ever analyzed GA crashes overall and compared different tank types, wet wing, separate tank, rubber bladder for propensity to fail and burn?

It does seem that a lot of the Cirrus crashes tend to be broom and dustpan cleanup exercises, rather than forklift and flatbed, though.


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
It does seem that a lot of the Cirrus crashes tend to be broom and dustpan cleanup exercises, rather than forklift and flatbed, though.


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Isn't that the nature of composites? When they go, they shatter? I don't know; I'm not a composites expert. Obviously, metal crumples.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Isn't that the nature of composites? When they go, they shatter? I don't know; I'm not a composites expert. Obviously, metal crumples.
Click to expand...

Would it make a difference? I mean that as a serious question not scarcaism. I'd think survivability is really the issue. Your no less dead in a metal plane that is crumple than a composite that is fragments. I really just don't know the answer.

So much subjective info would go into such an analysis. For Example back in the 70s when the Ford Pinto was shown to have an issue with the location of its gas tank that subjected it to blowing up on a rear end impact, the design flaw was the cause and what I'll call "Driver factor" was not an issue. Meaning the type of person who drove a pinto would not be a factor. Just because they were on a budget doesn't mean they were rash or risky drivers.

With planes we often consider the "Pilot Factor" What type of pilot flies certain planes. With the Cirrus for example there is specultion that since it has so many saftey features ie BRS, Blue Button, Infra-red vision etc that the pilots may not plan as well the " No biggie I have a chute" mentality. Of course there are lots of folks who fly technologically advanced planes that are super safe but the speculation is that they also attract those that may be a bit more reckless. I just don't know how you can measure that factor.
 
Trapper John said:
Do you know if anyone has ever analyzed GA crashes overall and compared different tank types, wet wing, separate tank, rubber bladder for propensity to fail and burn?
Click to expand...

That is an interesting question. A few years ago when I was faced with the decision on what to do about leaks in my Mooney's wet wings I opted for the O&N Bladder mod. It cost 30 pounds of useful load, but since I operate it as a two place that didn't matter.

One thing I though about was the safety aspect. It just seems that a tough rubber bag incased in an aluminum box will be less likely to burst open and spill fuel everwhere if it gets bent. Deforming the wing might open seams and let fuel out, but if the fuel is inside a flexilble rubber bag it might hold it in even when the seems in the wing rupture.

I know of no testing that has been done in this regard, but it just seemed logical. Helped me justify the $7K expense too!
 
I don't know Adam, but intuitively, it seems there would be a better chance to survive if the AF bent and gave (absorbing some of the impact) rather than just shattering. At some point, it certainly wouldn't matter, but how safe can one feel in something that becomes dust pan fodder after a solid impact? It would be interesting to know. I think that's the point I was trying to make earlier. There sure didn't seem to be anything left that could have absorbed some of the impact forces. But, I'm certainly open to understanding it better.

Sometimes folks survive when it sure looks like there isn't a chance in the world. But, there wasn't anything left to survive in here.

I saw three guys actually walk out of a LOH that went down in RVN. A GP strap got wrapped around the rotor. It came down hard and wasn't much more than four feet tall when I walked up to it. Three guys pulled them selves out and were ambulatory casualties. The LOH was designed to absorb downward impact forces: the problem was so many folks were out to prove it.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I don't know Adam, but intuitively, it seems there would be a better chance to survive if the AF bent and gave (absorbing some of the impact) rather than just shattering. At some point, it certainly wouldn't matter,
Click to expand...
In this case I think the pilot was well past that point of Al or composite making any sort of difference in survivability.

Don't Cirrus (Cirruses or Cirri?) also come with airbags?
 
I wish we had a better picture of the approach end- it looks as if he was so intent upon making the runway that he used-up all of his available energy trying, rather than keeping enough airspeed to flare and reduce the vertical impact speed in the off-airport landing he was doomed to make.

---

If I am not mistaken, the ColumbiEssnas, also composite, do not have the propensity to burn that has dogged the Cirruses. It does seem that, if you cannot be assured that you can land normally in a Cirrus, you are better-off pulling the 'chute. Not necessarily a completely evil thing, but definitely a retraining of the mind and expectations of airframe salvation. Skin, tin, ticket.

How high do you have to be for the CAPS to help? Might not have been an option for this fellow anyway.
 
SCCutler said:
I wish we had a better picture of the approach end- it looks as if he was so intent upon making the runway that he used-up all of his available energy trying, rather than keeping enough airspeed to flare and reduce the vertical impact speed in the off-airport landing he was doomed to make.

---

If I am not mistaken, the ColumbiEssnas, also composite, do not have the propensity to burn that has dogged the Cirruses. It does seem that, if you cannot be assured that you can land normally in a Cirrus, you are better-off pulling the 'chute. Not necessarily a completely evil thing, but definitely a retraining of the mind and expectations of airframe salvation. Skin, tin, ticket.

How high do you have to be for the CAPS to help? Might not have been an option for this fellow anyway.
Click to expand...

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...309,-81.056485&spn=0.022782,0.035191&t=h&z=15

Looks like trees and houses.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I don't know Adam, but intuitively, it seems there would be a better chance to survive if the AF bent and gave (absorbing some of the impact) rather than just shattering.
Click to expand...

That was my thinking. Crumpling absorbs more energy than shattering, if I understand my physics correctly. Every little bit of energy absorbed by the airframe, instead of the humans inside, increases survivability. I don't think the composites have much in the way of inherent "energy absorption," for lack of a better phrase. That's why they design the chute to bring the plane down in the vertical plane. Land on the gear, which are designed to crumple and absorb impact, and the bodies sit on the honeycomb-structure seats, which also deform in the vertical plane, absorbing impact. That guy who blacked out over (I think) the Hudson landed in the water and broke his back because the gear could not deform and absorb sufficient crash energy.

Take this with a grain of salt. Dammit Jim, I'm a pilot, not a composite airframe manufacturer!!!!!
 
SCCutler said:
I wish we had a better picture of the approach end- it looks as if he was so intent upon making the runway that he used-up all of his available energy trying, rather than keeping enough airspeed to flare and reduce the vertical impact speed in the off-airport landing he was doomed to make.
Click to expand...

I think that end of the taxiway at RH is a steep drop off where they added lots of fill dirt to get it level with the runway. Probably like hitting the side of a mountain.

Looks like poor old Skipper would have been better off not trying to return to the airport after his engine quit. Mushing into trees would have probably been better than smacking into the embankment short of the taxiway.
 
smigaldi said:
In this case I think the pilot was well past that point of Al or composite making any sort of difference in survivability.

Don't Cirrus (Cirruses or Cirri?) also come with airbags?
Click to expand...


mmmm very good point scott. Trying to figure out how that factors in. Obviously not much in this incident.
 
nddons said:
There are no open fields around there, but there are trees, and Lake Wylie is about 30 degrees left of the runway centerline and not too far away. If he was anywhere near 1,000 ft above the runway, I would think he could glide to the lake. (I haven't flown there since 2006 so I'm just recalling the sight picture when taking off from rwy 2.)
Click to expand...

I measured it last night on Google Earth and the lake is 2 miles off the departure end.
 
SCCutler said:
How high do you have to be for the CAPS to help? Might not have been an option for this fellow anyway.
Click to expand...
The POH says 900 ft for full deployment (from my fragile memory, I'll verify it). I've heard that one deployment at 400' resulted in "some help slowing down the impact"

smigaldi said:
Don't Cirrus (Cirruses or Cirri?) also come with airbags?
Click to expand...
The new ones like this one have those airbags on the should harness.

Joe
 
flyersfan31 said:
Isn't that the nature of composites? When they go, they shatter? I don't know; I'm not a composites expert. Obviously, metal crumples.
Click to expand...

I think the name of the game is for the aircraft structure to dissipate as much of the crash's kinetic energy as possible before imparting what's left to the occupants. Whether that involves crumpling an aluminum monocoque structure, bending a steel tube frame or fracturing many, many thousands of carbon fibers, you want to end up with a relatively whole occupant space that you can extricate yourself from before you burn up.

Of course, the less kinetic energy you have at impact, the less the aircraft structure needs to dissipate. That's when mundane aircraft like 2300 lb. C-172s that stall at 45 kt are your friend.


Trapper John
 
Jack Spectre said:
Yeah I could have lived my life without seeing 5 people with biohazard bags and nitrile gloves picking up itty bitty pieces of the poor guy off the taxiway.
Click to expand...
It's not as bad as being the guy with the bags. Trust me....speaking from experience on that one although I wish I wasn't.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Is it just me, or did it get your attention that the plane broke up into pretty small pieces? It sounds as it this thing really came apart, and the pictures seem to bear that out. Would that be from impact?
Click to expand...

Dave,

I think composites just do that... At least those that Cirrus uses. This is certainly not the only Cirrus crash where the plane has basically disintegrated. :no:

SCCutler said:
If I am not mistaken, the ColumbiEssnas, also composite, do not have the propensity to burn that has dogged the Cirruses.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the record of the DA40, which is stellar: Only one fatal accident, period - And that was when the pilot screwed up his approach and flew it into power lines. There has *never* been a post-crash fire on the DA40. The DA40 has dual main wing spars (structural testing was done with one of them removed, which is why the DA40 is to my knowledge the only certified composite airplane without an airframe life limit) and the fuel tanks are mounted between the spars. Smart design. :yes:

Compare that with the SR20...

First, a quick fleet size comparison: As of the end of 2008, Cirrus had shipped 964 SR20's and Diamond had shipped 1,254 DA40's. However, the Cirrus has been around longer so I put the yearly data in a spreadsheet to calculate the "airplane-years" that each type has (for example, the first 9 SR20's that Cirrus shipped in 1999 count as 90 airplane-years). They're very similar, with the SR20 at 4532 airplane-years and the DA40 at 4634 airplane-years.

Obviously, both the fleet size and the similar performance of the two aircraft would lead you to expect similar numbers of accidents. Not so. The NTSB lists only four DA40 accidents, only one was fatal, resulting in 3 fatalities, and no post-crash fires. The SR20 has 22 accidents listed, 10 of which were fatal resulting in 20 deaths; three of the 10 fatal accidents had post-crash fires.

:idea:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Take a look at the record of the DA40, which is stellar:...
Click to expand...

Kent -- this an excellent analysis, though I'm sure there has got to be some variables that haven't been considered?

Of course the Cirrus marketing campaign seems to be well-heeled, new-pilot focused. Diamonds appear to be sold to flight schools and therefore sold to an existing pilot population.

Are DA-20s flown IMC as often? Is there a way to know other than tracking FlightAware?
 
All airplanes spin, except the Ercoupe.

The Cirrus is a fast airplane. What is the typical dirty/gear-down stall speed in a turn? How does it react to too much rudder into the turn (skidding turn)?

My understanding is that the Cirrus was certificated by the FAA with the only spin recovery being deploying the 'chute. I had a very good friend in Oklahoma, an experienced CFI, killed while giving a Flight Review in a Cirrus. Pilot in left seat got relatively slow on base to final, spun it, no time for the 'chute. My CFI friend had been reluctant to fly in the Cirrus, as he was an old stick & rudder crop duster and glider pilot, and had told me he sure didn't like the Cirrus slow-flight / stall characteristics and 'chute spin recovery technique.

Interesting how the newer Cirri have a longer wing, lighter wing loading.

I won't get in one, but that's just my level of risk management after 42 years since my solo.

My Dad would say: Know who you are flying with, and the characteristics of the airplane you ride in. Both will try to kill you especially if you aren't the flying PIC.

Burt
CFI airplane and glider
Marfa, Texas
 
Marfa Gliders said:
All airplanes spin, except the Ercoupe.

The Cirrus is a fast airplane. What is the typical dirty/gear-down stall speed in a turn? How does it react to too much rudder into the turn (skidding turn)?

My understanding is that the Cirrus was certificated by the FAA with the only spin recovery being deploying the 'chute. I had a very good friend in Oklahoma, an experienced CFI, killed while giving a Flight Review in a Cirrus. Pilot in left seat got relatively slow on base to final, spun it, no time for the 'chute. My CFI friend had been reluctant to fly in the Cirrus, as he was an old stick & rudder crop duster and glider pilot, and had told me he sure didn't like the Cirrus slow-flight / stall characteristics and 'chute spin recovery technique.

Interesting how the newer Cirri have a longer wing, lighter wing loading.

I won't get in one, but that's just my level of risk management after 42 years since my solo.

My Dad would say: Know who you are flying with, and the characteristics of the airplane you ride in. Both will try to kill you especially if you aren't the flying PIC.

Burt
CFI airplane and glider
Marfa, Texas
Click to expand...

Grant did a really good report out and research on Cirrus and spins.

gprellwitz said:
I recently did a little research into the spin certification story on the Cirri for an acquaintance. It may have some bearing here....
It looks as if it is possible to recover an SR-20 from a spin, but perhaps not well enough to meet the spin certification standards: "Section 23.221 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 23.221) requires that single-engine, normal category airplanes demonstrate compliance with either the one-turn spin recovery or the spin-resistant requirements. The airplane, for spin recovery compliance, must recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after the controls have been applied for recovery. The Cirrus SR20/SR22 are not certificated to meet the spin recovery requirements or spin resistant requirements of 14 CFR 23.221. Instead, Cirrus installed Cirrus Airplane Parachute System (CAPS) that was FAA-approved as part of the SR20/SR22 type design." -- http://regulations.vlex.com/vid/airworthiness-directives-cirrus-design-corp-22903658

and

"b. Spin Behavior
i. Test Matrix. A limited investigation of the SR20 spin behavior has been completed and results are contained in Cirrus Design reports 12419, title, and 15568, title. The incipient spin and recovery characteristics were examined during more than 60 total spin entries covering the following configurations.
[see chart at reference -- Grant]
1. All spins conducted at gross weight.
2. Also evaluated accelerated entries, 30 degree banked turn entries, and effects of ailerons against the spin direction.
ii. Results. The aircraft recovered within one turn in all cases examined. Recovery controls were to reduce power, neutralize ailerons, apply full rudder opposite to spin, and to apply immediate full forward (nose down) pitch control. Altitude loss from spin entry to recovery ranged from 1,200 – 1,800 feet. Detail results can be found in the above referenced reports.
iii. Comments. No spin matrix less than that prescribed in AC23-8A or AC23-15, can determine that all configurations are recoverable. It must be assumed that the SR20 has some unrecoverable characteristics. In the SR20 proper execution of recovery control movements is necessary to affect recovery, and aircraft may become unrecoverable with incorrect control inputs. These spins enabled Cirrus to gain additional understanding of both the stall departure characteristics of the airplane and the necessary spin recovery techniques. "
-- http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/misc/3-105960-Cirrusstall-spinreport.pdf

Below is some of the other information I gathered:

http://www.whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx

Opinion: No, the Cirrus would have been certified anyway:

The European authorities (initially JAA, later EASA) when first evaluating the Cirrus SR20 agreed with the principles of the FAA/ELOS approach but had some further questions. A series of spins was performed on their initiative. While not a complete formal program they reported no unusual characteristics.

Cirrus: Yes it was necessary: Regardless of anything in the spin area, future designs (from Cirrus and others) need to disregard spins:

The fact remains that a generation of pilots has not received spin training – and from the record of prior generations it wouldn’t matter if they had. Cirrus continues to go forward with aircraft designs that meet these higher “passive safety” standards regardless of the implication for spin recovery; and is committed to CAPS as a means to recover from all “loss of control” situations – including spins.
============
From their manual (2005)

Safety Information SR20

Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS)

Deployment

The Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) is designed to lower the aircraft and its passengers to the ground in the event of a life threatening
emergency. However, because CAPS deployment is expected to result in damage to the airframe and, depending upon adverse external factors such as high deployment speed, low altitude, rough terrain or high wind conditions, may result in severe injury or death to the aircraft occupants, its use should not be taken lightly. Instead, possible CAPS activation scenarios should be well thought out and mentally practiced by every SR20 pilot.
The following discussion is meant to guide your thinking about CAPS activation. It is intended to be informative, not directive. It is the responsibility of you, the pilot, to determine when and how the CAPS will be used.

[...]

Loss of Control

Loss of control may result from many situations, such as: a control system failure (disconnected or jammed controls); severe wake turbulence, severe turbulence causing upset, severe airframe icing, or sustained pilot disorientation caused by vertigo or panic; or a spiral/spin. If loss of control occurs, determine if the airplane can be recovered. If control cannot be regained, the CAPS should be activated. This decision should be made prior to your pre-determined decision altitude (2,000’ AGL, as discussed below).


==============
http://chesavtraining.com/Cirrus-vs-Columbia.htm (Scott Denstaedt)

BRS and Spin Certification

Of course, one major difference between Cirrus and Columbia is that Cirrus has not been through any formal spin certification. The Cirrus POH only allows for a pilot to activate the Ballistic Recovery System (BRS) known as the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) once the airplane departs from controlled flight. Some Cirrus owners will tell you that they didn’t buy a Cirrus because of CAPS. However, many have purchased a Cirrus for this very reason or for the edification of their spouse.
===============

===============
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20

In terms of avoiding an accident, one problem with the Cirrus is its unforgiving handling compared to other basic four-seaters. The plane is harder to keep level with rudders in a stall than a Cessna or Diamond; if in a deep uncoordinated stall, the Cirrus wants to drop a wing and go into a spin. Thanks to a "split-airfoil" wing design, in which the inner portion of the wing has a higher angle of attack than the outer portion, the Cirrus gives more of a stall buffet warning than many airplanes. The outer portion of the wings, which are in front of the ailerons, are still flying and permitting the pilot to control roll with the yoke, even as the inner sections of the wings may be stalled and creating a warning buffet. This illustrates one of the advantages of composite construction; you could build a metal wing like this, but it would be very costly. For pilots accustomed to learning about an impending stall by feeling reduced airloads on the flight controls, the Cirrus provides much less stall warning. This is due to spring cartridges that continue to resist flight control movement even when the airplane is not moving. In other words, the flight controls feel similar whether you're flying or stalled.

A pilot with 800 hours in the SR22 noted that in his experience it is not nearly as docile as the Cessna 172 and Piper Arrow that he had trained on. A CFI ("certificated flight instructor") who now flies the $3 million Pilatus PC-12 says "The Cirrus is a plane designed to go fast. You shouldn't be flying it slow. It is trickier to handle in a stall than a 172 or the Pilatus."

Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover, according to the test pilots. Remember that spin testing in certification is done with a special tail parachute for breaking the spin that can then be cut away inflight. NASA puts this best:

"Because unrecoverable spins may be encountered during initial aircraft stall/spin flight tests, spin test aircraft are commonly equipped with emergency spin-recovery parachute systems, which can be deployed to terminate the spinning motion and reduce the aircraft angle of attack to below stall conditions. The parachute is then jettisoned by the pilot and conventional flight resumed."
— http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/spin_technology.html (contains some photos of spin-recovery parachutes)

You can see videos of such parachutes in action at http://www.airbornesystems-na.com/spinstall.html.

You're not going to be flying with a certification-testing parachute, however. A Cirrus pilot's only option is to pull the big main CAPS parachute and hope that he or she has not built up too much speed for the cords. A couple of new owners in Parish, NY managed to stall and spin their plane all the way down from 5000' AGL on April 24, 2002. Multi-engine planes don't have to be spin certified, and a lot of them are probably even nastier in a stall than the Cirrus, but very seldom are they sold to beginner pilots. A lot of single-engine four-seaters, notably Pipers and the Diamond Star, will just mush downward if you cut the power and hold the stick or yoke all the way back. Nearly all single-engine four-seaters will come out of a spin by themselves if you stop holding pro-spin rudder and let go of the yoke. The Cirrus demands more respect and more training.

Ideally you should do your stall practice with the plane loaded up with passengers and baggage. Many four-seaters, including the Cirrus, take on a different personality when light on fuel and only the two front seats are occupied versus when fully loaded with a more aft center of gravity.
==================
http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2003/sp0302.html
The FAA's Small Aircraft Directorate, which issued the Cirrus SR20 and SR22 type certificates, looked at more than 1,700 stall/spin accidents dating back to 1973 and concluded that 93 percent of those airplanes were at or below pattern altitude — too low for spin recovery. The current one-turn spin recovery requirement remains essentially unchanged since 1945, so inquiring minds asked what would happen if the departure from controlled flight, the stall, was made more difficult. Would fewer accidents occur? If the stall is prevented the spin can't happen. More important, how many lives could be saved if the aircraft's stall characteristics were friendlier?

NASA asked the same question in the late 1970s. Paul Stough and Dan DiCarlo reviewed several aerodynamic approaches to the problem in a recent paper, "Spin Resistance Development for Small Airplanes — A Retrospective." If the wing tips stall last, the pilot can maintain lateral control well into the stall. In a well-behaved airplane, the inboard section of the wing stalls first and may cause buffeting and pitching without rolling off. If the pilot is paying any attention at all, the shaking, the decay of control response, and the pitch movement should provide ample warning to reduce the angle of attack and start flying again before the aircraft departs controlled flight.
[...]
According to Stough and DiCarlo, "Both the Cirrus and Lancair were certified using spin-resistance certification standards; however, neither was certified as fully spin resistant." Cirrus, which had already made the decision to include a standard parachute system to solve other safety problems, proposed this as an equivalent level of safety. If the pilot somehow managed to get beyond the enhanced stall characteristics and into a spin, there was a way to escape.
[...]
According to the SR22 POH, the airplane is not approved for spins, and the only method of spin recovery is activating the CAPS. If the airplane departs controlled flight, the CAPS must be deployed immediately. Spin entry is unlikely with proper airmanship, including the caveat never to abuse "the flight controls with accelerated inputs close to the stall." An abrupt wing drop in this case may lead to a spin or spiral, and it may be difficult to determine which. The POH notes that the minimum demonstrated altitude loss for a CAPS deployment is 920 feet from a one-turn spin, and pilots are cautioned not to "waste time and altitude trying to recover from a spiral/spin before activating CAPS."
============
And a thread on this topic. The source is, of course, somewhat more unverified than the rest of the stuff one finds on the Internet.
http://www.studentpilot.com/interact/forum/printthread.php?t=34778&pp=40
Click to expand...
 
Marfa Gliders said:
All airplanes spin, except the Ercoupe.
Click to expand...
But not all of them can do a reliable recovery, especially when you get into slightly bigger ones.

Marfa Gliders said:
I had a very good friend in Oklahoma, an experienced CFI, killed while giving a Flight Review in a Cirrus. Pilot in left seat got relatively slow on base to final, spun it, no time for the 'chute.
Click to expand...
Sorry about your friend, but how many other airplanes would have recovered from a spin entered on base to final?
 
Everskyward said:
Sorry about your friend, but how many other airplanes would have recovered from a spin entered on base to final?
Click to expand...
It seems to mostly be a function of altitude and there is just not enough at that point. Another question is if one has a BRS are you high enough to have it deploy and slow you down?
 
Ideally you should do your stall practice with the plane loaded up with passengers and baggage. Many four-seaters, including the Cirrus, take on a different personality when light on fuel and only the two front seats are occupied versus when fully loaded with a more aft center of gravity.
Click to expand...

This is interetsing academically, but terrible advice.
 
dmccormack said:
Kent -- this an excellent analysis, though I'm sure there has got to be some variables that haven't been considered?
Click to expand...

Well, as with any analysis of aviation accidents, there are a lot of variables - Hopefully I've considered all of the important ones. I do think that the DA40 is just a really well-designed aircraft, easy to fly, and doesn't attract the "type A personality" so much.

Of course the Cirrus marketing campaign seems to be well-heeled, new-pilot focused. Diamonds appear to be sold to flight schools and therefore sold to an existing pilot population.
Click to expand...

Flight schools are an existing pilot population? ;)

I don't think there's too much of a difference between the number of flight schools using DA40's and those using SR20's though I think the DA40 schools tend to be independent 61/141 schools whereas the SR20 ones are more likely to be at a college 141 program. I don't have any data on that, it's simply my observation from traveling around the country and looking for airplanes to rent and fly.

Are DA-20s flown IMC as often? Is there a way to know other than tracking FlightAware?
Click to expand...

DA20's aren't flown IMC as they're not IFR certified - But I'm assuming you meant DA40's because that's what I'm talking about. The DA40 is Diamond's 4-seat, single-engine, 180hp, constant-speed-prop, 140 to 150 knot, G1000 equipped fun machine. :yes:

Tracking FlightAware may work, but it'd be a lot of work and might not really tell us much. In fact, that'll tell you when the planes were IFR, which could be VMC or IMC. OTOH, the Cirri seem to have plenty of VFR-into-IMC CFIT accidents which wouldn't necessarily show up on FlightAware.

Really, without more detailed information from the FAA and NTSB, I don't think we can get any better conclusions from this sort of thing.
 
This hit close to home as I have flown into Rock Hill many times. Yet again, illustrates the dangers when a new pilot starts flying too much of an airplane. IMO, I feel he was afraid or reluctant to do an off field landing because it was a new and expensive airplane.
 
dmccormack said:
This is interetsing academically, but terrible advice.
Click to expand...

Maybe "Loaded up with a CFI and two pilot passengers" instead of just "Passengers." Pax tend to not like stalls, and we don't need to make any enemies of GA. However, I do agree that some stalls should be done fully loaded... Or do you disagree with that?
 
Comparing the DA40 and the Cirrus is not cricket, it's like comparing a 172 and a Bonanza. They're both 4 place aircraft made of the same stuff. I think a comparison with the Lanceair/Columbia/Corvalis might be more informative, since the latter more closely shares size, speed, and mission characteristics with the Cirrus. I would do the search right now but the NTSB page is being uncooperative.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Maybe "Loaded up with a CFI and two pilot passengers" instead of just "Passengers." Pax tend to not like stalls, and we don't need to make any enemies of GA. However, I do agree that some stalls should be done fully loaded... Or do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? My intro to GA was sitting in the back of a PA-28-140 while my dad and his instructor flew stalls, etc. I'm sure my bulk got that little Cherokee near MGW!

;)


Anyway, I don't disgree, as long as the a/c is loaded to utility, and few can be loaded to MGW while remaining utility. If the pilot messes up the stall entry, recovering from the spin may be difficult, if not impossible.
 
steingar said:
Comparing the DA40 and the Cirrus is not cricket, it's like comparing a 172 and a Bonanza. They're both 4 place aircraft made of the same stuff. I think a comparison with the Lanceair/Columbia/Corvalis might be more informative, since the latter more closely shares size, speed, and mission characteristics with the Cirrus.
Click to expand...

Mike,

With all due respect, you're wrong. I'm comparing the DA40 to the SR20, not the SR22. The DA40 is 180hp, the SR20 is 200hp. The DA40 goes 140-150 knots (depending on year, the newer XL/XLS models easily do 150) and the SR20 goes 150 knots.

They're both four-place singles that are similarly equipped, have similar performance, and are similar in MANY ways not limited to being "made of the same stuff."

The Columbiessnas are a better comparison with the SR22, not the SR20. The reason I'm picking on the SR20 is that it is similar to the DA40 and that I wanted to point out some of the excellent design characteristics of the DA40 with regards to safety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top