Cirrus down in SC

flyingcheesehead said:
Flight schools are an existing pilot population? ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, in the sense that the potential purchasers of the product are surrounded by aviation folks, as opposed to the guy flipping through the New Yorker on the LIRR on the way home to the Hamptons.

flyingcheesehead said:
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.

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:
Click to expand...

-20, -40 -- good grief -- how's a simple guy to keep up with it all!

;)

Actually, I saw a nice DA-20 at KPTD last week -- very nice, sleek airplane that appears fragile, in a whispy way, given it's thin, long features.

I've only caught a glimpse of a DA-40 once at an air show static display. There's a few on the ramp at KAGC, but I try an avoid that particular locale for a variety of reasons.

:dunno:

flyingcheesehead said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agree, though I think it's an interesting comparison.

Reminds me of the Bonanza vs. C182 world.

:thumbsup:
 
dmccormack said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are you saying then that you shouldn't stall any airplane which is in the normal category because there are many that are not in the utility category at any weight or CG.
 
dmccormack said:
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.
Click to expand...

But many airplanes don't even have a utility loading envelope, and myself and my CFI (both of us big guys) would be over the utility limits on a 172 with just the two of us.

The point of the stalls at MGW is so that you know how it stalls at MGW which can be significantly different than at lower weights and make the recovery harder. Limiting it to utility category won't help when the pilot is loaded to MGW and gets into a near-stall situation. The point of having the CFI aboard is to ensure that the pilot does NOT mess up the stall entry and get into a spin.
 
Everskyward said:
Are you saying then that you shouldn't stall any airplane which is in the normal category because there are many that are not in the utility category at any weight or CG.
Click to expand...

Nope... I just think it's smart to be sure of the pilot's competency before nibbling on the edges of the envelope.

Loading any GA airplane with Pax and doing stall series is beyond the expectations of most curricula, and that's fine.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
But many airplanes don't even have a utility loading envelope, and myself and my CFI (both of us big guys) would be over the utility limits on a 172 with just the two of us.

The point of the stalls at MGW is so that you know how it stalls at MGW which can be significantly different than at lower weights and make the recovery harder. Limiting it to utility category won't help when the pilot is loaded to MGW and gets into a near-stall situation. The point of having the CFI aboard is to ensure that the pilot does NOT mess up the stall entry and get into a spin.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but I don't think loading up the airplane with Pax is a great idea.

Maybe having an interested student sit in the back in a true 3-4 place airplane makes sense, but there's not a whole lot of learning that's gonna happen at MGW that can't happen a bit less than gross.
 
dmccormack said:
I don't disagree, but I don't think loading up the airplane with Pax is a great idea.

Maybe having an interested student sit in the back in a true 3-4 place airplane makes sense, but there's not a whole lot of learning that's gonna happen at MGW that can't happen a bit less than gross.
Click to expand...
I have to go look to be sure, but I seem to recall that the Warrior is placarded as such to prohibit pax in the rear seat and cargo when operating in the utility mode.
 
The thing that gets me head scratching is that we have seen several Cirrus crashes, like this one, where the right answer seems to be the chute, but it doesn't get deployed or gets deployed too late or in a condition where it can't save the occupants. If you are in a plane with a chute and have an engine out on takeoff, why in the world would you try to make the "impossible turn" to save the plane when you can pull that handle instead?
 
Trapper John said:
Perhaps by CG or GW concern, but not by any Type Certificate/POH restriction that I'm aware of.

Maybe it depends on what suffix 172 we're talking about?


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Well, I've flown N and L model lately, and both were Utility only with weight in the two front seats.

Though on second thought it may not have been placarded thus.

:dunno:
 
Two things to add to my previous post:

1) I obviously understand that an airframe that crumples would give better protection than one that shatters into a zillion splinters my question was based upon the fact that I don't know if it shattered into a zillion pieces from the impact or an explosion.

2) I just saw that the accident pilot in the NC case got his ticket in 2008. Don't know how many hours he had but I still thing the 22 is a lot of plane for a low time pilot.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, but only a very small minority of those fatalities (speaking primarily of the ones I've seen the autopsy reports for) was due to the trauma of the crash and not the post crash fire. Now granted, the fire issue is a huge issue in that it may not be causing a spike in mortality among the pilots and passengers, but it certainly could be adding to the non-fatal injury toll. The bigger problem with the Cirrus line is that cockpit is about as structurally sound in a crash sequence as a Styrofoam cup. Basically in the crash of a Cirrus, unlike almost every other non-ultralight out there, very few people survive to meet their end when the fire (and chances are better than even there will be a fire unless you land in water or run the fuel tanks dry first) gets to the cockpit.

Here's the full breakdown of Cirrus fatalities in the US:
7/30/2009 SR-22 Blunt trauma with hypoxia as a contributing factor
6/16/2009 SR-22 UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME
4/28/2009 SR-22 Blunt trauma for both occupants
2/17/2009 SR-20 Blunt trauma
1/30/2009 SR-20 Blunt trauma for all occupants
1/29/2009 SR-22 UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME
11/13/2008 SR-22 Blunt trauma
9/11/2008 SR-22 UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME
8/10/2008 SR-22 Blunt trauma (mid-air collision with Cessna R172K)
4/22/2008 SR-22 Blunt trauma
4/8/2008 SR-22 Blunt trauma
3/20/2008 SR-22 Blunt trauma
3/14/2008 SR-22 Blunt trauma
2/2/2008 SR-22 Blunt trauma
12/30/2007 SR-22 Probably blunt trauma
11/25/2007 SR-22 Blunt trauma
11/21/2007 SR-20 Blunt trauma
12/18/2006 SR-22 Blunt trauma
11/30/2006 SR-22 Blunt trauma
10/27/2006 SR-22 Blunt trauma (crash had two survivors)
10/25/2006 SR-22 Blunt trauma
10/11/2006 SR-22 Blunt trauma (Cory Lidle crash)
9/15/2006 SR-20 Blunt trauma
8/28/2006 SR-22 Blunt trauma
7/11/2006 SR-22 Blunt trauma (survived for three weeks after crash)
2/4/2006 SR-22 Blunt trauma
1/9/2006 SR-20 Blunt trauma
12/29/2005 SR-22 Blunt trauma
12/11/2005 SR-22 UNKNOWN/NOT LISTED
2/6/2005 SR-22 UNKNOWN/NOT LISTED
1/20/2005 SR-22 "Blunt and sharp force trauma"
1/15/2005 SR-22 Blunt trauma
12/4/2004 SR-22 Blunt trauma (1 survivor)
9/10/2004 SR-22 Blunt trauma
4/19/2004 SR-20 Blunt trauma
1/23/2003 SR-20 Blunt trauma
1/18/2003 SR-22 Unknown
11/3/2002 SR-20 Blunt trauma
5/28/2002 SR-20 Thermal trauma, smoke inhalation
4/24/2002 SR-22 Unknown
4/10/2001 SR-20 Unknown
3/23/1999 SR-20 Blunt trauma (CRASH OF TEST AIRCRAFT THAT LED CIRRUS TO INSTALL THE PARACHUTE ON THEIR AIRCRAFT SO THEY COULD BE CERTIFIED)

This is in stark contrast to the larger statistics of aircraft fatalities where 10-20% of fatalities (variability depending upon the inclusion or exclusion of airliner crash data) are due to thermal trauma or exposure to the toxic products of combustion. It possibly points to serious issues with the structural integrity of the passenger compartment of the aircraft as being the more serious issue with survivability rather than the fuel tank issue. I am not saying the fuel tanks are not a problem- they are- but rather that the problem that is killing most of the people in these crashes should be what makes us worry about the aircraft (beyond the known issues with it's handling characteristics and the directed marketing of the aircraft to low hour pilots and flight schools).
 
Last edited:
It would be interesting to see a crash test dummy sequence of some different types of airplanes. However, I'm not sure it would show much since, unlike cars, airplanes impact the ground in a whole different selection of ways.
 
It would be interesting to see a crash test dummy sequence of some different types of airplanes.
Click to expand...
Some other injury prevention researchers (including some people who are well known in the automotive safety community) and myself are trying to work on getting that accomplished. I'll keep you posted if you would like. There is/was actually a rig in Virginia for simulating aircraft crashes, but getting access to it may prove to be extremely difficult (since it's a NASA/military operation).
 
Last edited:
SteveinMichigan said:
Some other injury prevention researchers (including some people who are well known in the automotive safety community) and myself are trying to work on getting that accomplished. I'll keep you posted if you would like. There is/was actually a rig in Virginia for simulating aircraft crashes, but getting access to it may prove to be extremely difficult (since it's a NASA/military operation).
Click to expand...

I've seen that "swing" demonstrated on a Discovery TV program... impressive.
 
Interesting to me... I believe that Cirrus went to pretty extensive lengths to ensure that the aircraft had good survivability characteristics in a vertical impact (ie, coming down onto the landing gear at the speeds expected with the CAPS deployed). Perhaps too much faith in the pilot's decision-making abilities in a crisis, the decision to Pull The Red Handle?
 
SCCutler said:
Interesting to me... I believe that Cirrus went to pretty extensive lengths to ensure that the aircraft had good survivability characteristics in a vertical impact (ie, coming down onto the landing gear at the speeds expected with the CAPS deployed). Perhaps too much faith in the pilot's decision-making abilities in a crisis, the decision to Pull The Red Handle?
Click to expand...

Does anyone know what the impact was like in this accident? AFaIK FRP can absorb energy as well as aluminum or steel, it just does it with a different result in terms of the residual structure. If you run a Bonanza into a 3 ft diameter tree trunk or a solid concrete wall at 120 kt, the occupants won't fare any better than they would in a plastic airplane. I suspect (but really don't know) that this is true in lesser impacts except that it does appear more likely that the Cirrus fuel tanks would dump their load more often than the bladder lined tanks of a Bonanza.
 
gismo said:
Does anyone know what the impact was like in this accident?
Click to expand...

It was catastrophic. No aircraft would have protected it's occupants. Skipper Beck hit an embankment well below runway elevation at approach speed. His aircraft burst like an egg and all it's (and his) parts were launched back into the air to fall like confetti on the taxi way.

The dude never had a chance. It is a classic example of why you don't try to return to the field after an engine failure from too low an altitude.

As a side note, the NIMBYs in the area are trying to use this to bolster their arguments against the proposed 1000 ft runway extension. But, if the extension had already been done, Skipper would have made it back dead stick in one piece and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
 
Interestingly, I got a call from a Cirrus salesman this morning (one of the benefits of sitting in Cirri and leaving your name with the salesmen at AirVenture.) I asked about this accident, which he knew about, and which he saw the pictures of. I asked about crashworthyness of the composites, and he mentioned that Cirrus has a roll cage around the cabin, though that obviously didn't help Beck in this case. He also said that he heard speculation of a possible medical incident, but who knows.

With respect to pulling the chute, he said they recommend 1,000 ft AGL, but said that he would use it at any time with an engine out, equating it to traveling in a car at various speeds and seeing a deer on the road. You're going to hit the brakes no matter how fast or slow you are going.
 
N5571Q said:
It was catastrophic. No aircraft would have protected it's occupants. Skipper Beck hit an embankment well below runway elevation at approach speed. His aircraft burst like an egg and all it's (and his) parts were launched back into the air to fall like confetti on the taxi way.

The dude never had a chance. It is a classic example of why you don't try to return to the field after an engine failure from too low an altitude.

As a side note, the NIMBYs in the area are trying to use this to bolster their arguments against the proposed 1000 ft runway extension. But, if the extension had already been done, Skipper would have made it back dead stick in one piece and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Click to expand...

Theo, was he taking off from runway 2?
 
nddons said:
Theo, was he taking off from runway 2?
Click to expand...

That is what I was told, but I wasn't there so I can't say for sure. The end of the runway in the photos is 20, so that is what it looks like as well. Take off on 2, loose power, make a 180+ turn in an attempt to return to the runway, and smack the embankment at the end of rwy 20 taxiway. I have driven, taxied, and flown by that area many times. It is a very steep embankment leading up to the level of the taxiway. Check it out on Google earth. It is pretty dramatic. It looks like the worst possible scenario.

There are probably some KUZY occupants on the forum that have heard more details than I (I keep the Mooney at KLKR nearby), but I know the flight school owner there very well. I will probably get a first hand account from him when I see him next.
 
nddons said:
but said that he would use it at any time with an engine out, equating it to traveling in a car at various speeds and seeing a deer on the road. You're going to hit the brakes no matter how fast or slow you are going.
Click to expand...
An airplane isn't a car ... and well... pulling the chute too low could be pretty disastrous.
 
N5571Q said:
That is what I was told, but I wasn't there so I can't say for sure. The end of the runway in the photos is 20, so that is what it looks like as well. Take off on 2, loose power, make a 180+ turn in an attempt to return to the runway, and smack the embankment at the end of rwy 20 taxiway. I have driven, taxied, and flown by that area many times. It is a very steep embankment leading up to the level of the taxiway. Check it out on Google earth. It is pretty dramatic. It looks like the worst possible scenario.

There are probably some KUZY occupants on the forum that have heard more details than I (I keep the Mooney at KLKR nearby), but I know the flight school owner there very well. I will probably get a first hand account from him when I see him next.
Click to expand...

I earned my PPL at Monroe (KEQY), and logged a lot of landings at Rock Hill and Lancaster. Lancaster was my first airport < 25nm from Monroe, so I did a lot of pattern work there. I enjoyed the view of the Catawba river landing on rwy 6.

As for UZA, I recall that embankment was pretty steep and unnerving if you were taxiing a little too fast.
 
gismo said:
Does anyone know what the impact was like in this accident? AFaIK FRP can absorb energy as well as aluminum or steel, it just does it with a different result in terms of the residual structure. If you run a Bonanza into a 3 ft diameter tree trunk or a solid concrete wall at 120 kt, the occupants won't fare any better than they would in a plastic airplane. I suspect (but really don't know) that this is true in lesser impacts except that it does appear more likely that the Cirrus fuel tanks would dump their load more often than the bladder lined tanks of a Bonanza.
Click to expand...

Carbon fiber Formula 1 and / or Indy cars seem to be able to drive into a wall at 200 mph and still leave the driver pretty much in one piece. Sometimes.
 
and he mentioned that Cirrus has a roll cage around the cabin, though that obviously didn't help Beck in this case
Click to expand...

Calling it a "roll cage" is a bit like calling the fuel tank of a Pinto "self sealing".

I believe that Cirrus went to pretty extensive lengths to ensure that the aircraft had good survivability characteristics in a vertical impact (ie, coming down onto the landing gear at the speeds expected with the CAPS deployed)
Click to expand...

The problem (beyond the fact that most of the few pilots who find themselves in a situation where the CAPS could potentially help don't deploy it until it's too late) is that they spent way too much effort on vertical impact protection and not enough on protecting the passengers and pilots from more realistic crash forces. Nice effort, but poorly focused.

He also said that he heard speculation of a possible medical incident, but who knows.
Click to expand...

Of course, nothing went wrong with the plane and it wasn't too much plane for a relatively low hour pilot. Given the lack of fire, I think an out of fuel situation is far more likely.

AFaIK FRP can absorb energy as well as aluminum or steel, it just does it with a different result in terms of the residual structure.
Click to expand...

That's the problem: the residual structure is what protects the occupants. Granted a lot of metal aircraft out there don't do an ideal job of it, but composites fail upon impact rather than deforming which gives ZERO occupant protection which may explain why you seldom see survivors in crashes of composite aircraft where as it is far more common to see non-fatal crashes (even if you exclude "non-crashes" like runway overruns, hard landings, etc) in aircraft built of more traditional materials. Composite has it's place, just not as the main means of protecting the pilots and passengers.

appear more likely that the Cirrus fuel tanks would dump their load more often than the bladder lined tanks of a Bonanza
Click to expand...

Which is, as I said before, the least of the immediate concerns since most people don't even survive long enough to burn alive (thankfully?).

An airplane isn't a car ... and well... pulling the chute too low could be pretty disastrous.
Click to expand...

Very good point. As opposed to the nasty tendency for it to deploy on impact? The joke I keep hearing (gallow's humor and all) is that it's main purpose is to start a fire so it's easier to find the crash site by the smoke column. Hell, I've heard two NTSB investigators refer to it as the "Wile E. Coyote mechanism" because it tends to fire out of a smoking hole in the ground. To directly quote one of them, "I keep expecting to see ACME painted down the side of the thing."

It was catastrophic. No aircraft would have protected it's occupants.
Click to expand...

We technically don't know that so let's not make assumptions based on facts not in evidence, OK? While it was a high speed impact, we don't know just how fast he was actually going and with composite aircraft fragmentation is often quite dramatic leading to an overestimation of the impact velocity when you assess it solely on damage if you're used to looking at wreckage of non-composite aircraft. A good example of this that many of us are familiar with is what happens in racing when cars hit walls in terms of debris and fragmentation versus what happens when our own car hits a wall at high speed. You get two distinct and varied patterns of damage. This is not even taking into effect the documented tendency of the Cirrus series to open up like an origami flower upon impact, spilling out it's occupants during the crash sequence even during the few crashes with documented survivors.

Anything to sell an airplane I guess ...
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking. I mean the company has already demonstrated a blatant disregard for the safety issues and continued to market the aircraft to persons who have no business flying it. Should we expect anything but more of that from the rank and file sales person?
 
Carbon fiber Formula 1 and / or Indy cars seem to be able to drive into a wall at 200 mph and still leave the driver pretty much in one piece. Sometimes.
Click to expand...
Actually I only know of one F1 or Indy car crash since carbon fiber where the driver's body was fragmented. :p Can't say the same for the aviation side of its use. You're right: it's all about what specific type of composite/carbon fiber is being used and how it is used in the structure.
 
gismo said:
Does anyone know what the impact was like in this accident? AFaIK FRP can absorb energy as well as aluminum or steel, it just does it with a different result in terms of the residual structure. If you run a Bonanza into a 3 ft diameter tree trunk or a solid concrete wall at 120 kt, the occupants won't fare any better than they would in a plastic airplane. I suspect (but really don't know) that this is true in lesser impacts except that it does appear more likely that the Cirrus fuel tanks would dump their load more often than the bladder lined tanks of a Bonanza.
Click to expand...

I am based at Rock Hill and fly a similar 2008 SR22T for a client at the airport, his airplane was a 2009 SR22T X. Those that witnessed the accident made statements such as when he took off (runway 2) it appeared as if he climbed very rapidly and the engine made weird noises, it appeared as if he was a stunt pilot making abrupt maneuvers. He apparently attempted to return to the airport by a witness.

The terrain must drop off 20 to 30 feet or more at the end of the parallel taxiway. There is a project on the field that is finishing up where dirt has been moved to the area to raise the level so that a parallel taxiway can be extended another 500 feet, but it has a long way to go and eventually, the airport will have to import a lot of dirt to accomplish its eventual goal of increasing the runway length.

Just past the taxiway towards the runway, the level of the land raises to runway level and there is a dirt overrun area of at least 500 to a 1000 feet towards the north where a localizer antenna array is located. If he was under control and hit the drop off, he had plenty of range to land on the overrun, although he would have been short of the runway. Hitting the vertical drop off was devastating and would have resulted in instant death for any person in any airplane.

It is not clear to me that he was under control when he hit the drop off below the taxiway or he could have easily flown to the area only a few feet away that was level and that extends a long way to the north of his impact site.

It is possible he did not have his trim set for takeoff which could explain the steep departure reported by a witness and he could have lost control and spun in. Others have suggested that maybe he had a medical incapacitation. If he had reached 400 feet AGL, he could have deployed the chute, but it doesn't appear as if the chute was deployed before impact.
 
Nice to see you on this board John. Hope we see you some more.

I'll be in Greenville in a couple weeks; I'll check and see what you're up to.

Best,

Dave
 
SteveinMichigan said:
Actually I only know of one F1 or Indy car crash since carbon fiber where the driver's body was fragmented. :p Can't say the same for the aviation side of its use. You're right: it's all about what specific type of composite/carbon fiber is being used and how it is used in the structure.
Click to expand...

What sort of weight is required in an airframe to provide the equivalent of IndyCar protection?
 
dmccormack said:
What sort of weight is required in an airframe to provide the equivalent of IndyCar protection?
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know (not an engineer) but I do know that those cars aren't all that heavy (about 1300 lbs fully loaded but without fuel if I recall) and a high percentage of that is the engine. That would tend to make me believe the needed structural components for occupant protection would not require that much weight.
 
SteveinMichigan said:
I honestly don't know (not an engineer) but I do know that those cars aren't all that heavy (about 1300 lbs fully loaded but without fuel if I recall) and a high percentage of that is the engine. That would tend to make me believe the needed structural components for occupant protection would not require that much weight.
Click to expand...

Of course IndyCar drivers wear NOMEX suits, boots, gloves, helmets, and flameproof balaclavas.

I doubt many passengers would enjoy suiting up that way.

:dunno:
 
Of course IndyCar drivers wear NOMEX suits, boots, gloves, helmets, and flameproof balaclavas.

I doubt many passengers would enjoy suiting up that way.
Click to expand...
It's also not fire that kills most people in aircraft crashes, nor is that what we're talking about. Let's pick a problem and stick with it and not muddy the waters by bringing in a related but separate issue. Granted, helmets are a good idea, but not practical and potentially could exacerbate the risk of cervical spine and basilar skull injuries in the....."less fit" amongst our ranks.
 
dmccormack said:
Of course IndyCar drivers wear NOMEX suits, boots, gloves, helmets, and flameproof balaclavas.

I doubt many passengers would enjoy suiting up that way.

:dunno:
Click to expand...

Most IndyCar injuries are usually to the feet and legs since they hang out in front of the wheels. The seat and roll structure are very strong and made specifically to protect the driver while the rest of the car disintegrates around him to dissipate the energy.
 
EppyGA said:
Most IndyCar injuries are usually to the feet and legs since they hang out in front of the wheels. The seat and roll structure are very strong and made specifically to protect the driver while the rest of the car disintegrates around him to dissipate the energy.
Click to expand...
Was there a radical change to the Indy car designs in the last 30 minutes or so that I was not aware of?

I don't see how the driver's feet and hands are in front of the wheels unless you are talking the rear wheels. In which case so what.

final%20design%20faster%20than%20turtles%20indy%20car.JPG
 
smigaldi said:
Was there a radical change to the Indy car designs in the last 30 minutes or so that I was not aware of?

I don't see how the driver's feet and hands are in front of the wheels unless you are talking the rear wheels. In which case so what.

final%20design%20faster%20than%20turtles%20indy%20car.JPG
Click to expand...

So it was badly worded. Point I was making is that generally the injuries are to the feet and legs in accidents where the impact is close to head on to the wall as the front structure disintegrates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top