Cirrus down in Truckee

Knees in the seats will compromise them, sitting on them won't. The seats are part of the system, but the landing gear plays a big role too.

Yes. If they were low and the chute didn't cut the snubber line yet / fully deploy then they might have hit nose first and the landing gear would be been less involved.

Knowing now that the airport was at 6000' with a high DA, I'm willing to bet they were not at 500' yet.
 
So the Cirrus climb gradient (assuming I did the math correctly) is 285 feet per mile.

Now imagine taking off on RWY33 from this somewhat typical N GA airport in an SR20 and climbing at that gradient.

51255158996_a82cbff68b_z.jpg


YIKES!
 
I just noticed that Truckee has a tower and Tahoe doesn't. It used to be the opposite.

Commercial airline flights to Tahoe have tapered substantially as cheap tickets disappeared over the years.

Conversely, Truckee traffic has increased in the summer months now supported by a summer season tower. Believe the tower is remote, but haven’t flown there in a couple of years.

Traffic patterns and segregated flight areas, noise abatement procedures, combined with the mountains make KTRK challenging for anybody new to the airport.

To the airports credit, they have made a nice online tutorial regarding the procedures. Representatives of the airport also come to the bay area frequently to talk to Pilot groups about how best to fly in and out of KTRK.

https://truckeetahoeairport.com/aviation/procedures

340477BF-AE5A-421E-8FC5-EF60F167E3D9.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Now imagine taking off on RWY33 from this somewhat typical N GA airport in an SR20 and climbing at that gradient.

51255158996_a82cbff68b_z.jpg


YIKES!

That's a nope, as I'm sure it would be for you. Unfortunately, some pilots either don't know to say no, or think they are aces and can handle it.
 
He makes a good point, and one I agree with. Based on the crash position, this looks like a simple stall in a turn type accident. When climbing at that altitude which they would still be doing on upwind to crosswind, the stall margin and climb speed are pretty close.
That means you bank quickly and to far, you are going down.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
 
Now imagine taking off on RWY33 from this somewhat typical N GA airport in an SR20 and climbing at that gradient.

51255158996_a82cbff68b_z.jpg


YIKES!

Learned to fly at PDK. This was one of the airports my instructor took me to. Departing to the NW, you have to follow the valley (and rising terrain) until you get high enough. The lesson that day was in an underpowered airplane on a hot day, you takeoff SE even with a tailwind (assuming you can get into the air with a tailwind). If you can't, you wait until it cools off.
 
Learned to fly at PDK. This was one of the airports my instructor took me to. Departing to the NW, you have to follow the valley (and rising terrain) until you get high enough. The lesson that day was in an underpowered airplane on a hot day, you takeoff SE even with a tailwind (assuming you can get into the air with a tailwind). If you can't, you wait until it cools off.
I’ve taken both a C172 and a PA28-140 into Lumpkin County (9A0). I always departed to the SE. Went around in the Cherokee after I knew I was going to land long. I had a passenger with me on a hot summer day. Too close for comfort clearing the rising terrain to the NW. Gave me a fine appreciation for aircraft performance and how it’s impacted by DA. I Have a C150 now and there is ZERO chance that I would go there in the summer months.
 
--did not read all the posts since I last checked in..

Still, that's under 20 mph, with nice landing gear and seats to absorb the crunch.
Yup.. or about the same as getting dropped from 10-15 feet. 1,700 sounds fast because in small GA we don't usually see FPM like that, but in reality it's not awful. I was wrong before, I said about 700 fpm, apparently I was missing a 1. The literature actually states "15-28 feet per second" depending on weight and atmos conditions.. so about 900 to 1700 fpm. Certainly fast, but outside of a fire or low pull all the CAPS pulls have "worked"

But I genuinely don't believe this to be a fault of the chute. It's much more plausible that they did not maintain airspeed and lost control or had some sort of engine/fuel issue

The way I was taught, if you have an issue above caps alt but lower than 2K AGL automatically pull. Don't dilly dally. I'd be curious in stats on Cirrus no chute dead stick landings actually. That's a fair point

ou have to be patient in a 20, they will climb, but they will heat up too if it's warm so you need to get clear of obstacles and transition into a cruise climb as soon as you can. I imagine in places like Truckee, that means plan your climb route carefully.
I only have about 30 hrs in SR20.. my initial Cirrus training was in that (so about 10 hrs) then I rented it a handful of times while doing the SR22 transition. I've brought a few of my friends to the dark side :devil: and I've been right seat in a few SR20 recently this year. Man.. climbing out of Hemet on a warm day (about 30*C), though not hot, with field elev 1,500 that thing was struggling. This particular is a very old g1.. but man, talk about a slow climb. And yes, the engine temps certainly crept up. For the rate at which most SR20 rent at the value proposition just isn't there (for me) when comparing useful load and overall performance against the usual Cessna/Piper fleet. The 182RG in our club rents for nearly the same, I hate myself for saying this but I'd prefer that over the SR20 as it feels much better powered (I know, bigger engine, but speaking of renter value prop..). The SR22 is in a whole different ball park, that extra 50% power makes a HUGE difference. It's like if Douglas had offered a DC-10 only missing the rear engine.

I would think the high DA would also affect the chute inflation height.
That's a great point. I'm not aware of any "max alt" limitation but I am curious how would one fair pulling it at 16K on a hot day over the middle of the Sierras where the elevations are 12K - 14K
 
--did not read all the posts since I last checked in..


Yup.. or about the same as getting dropped from 10-15 feet. 1,700 sounds fast because in small GA we don't usually see FPM like that, but in reality it's not awful. I was wrong before, I said about 700 fpm, apparently I was missing a 1. The literature actually states "15-28 feet per second" depending on weight and atmos conditions.. so about 900 to 1700 fpm. Certainly fast, but outside of a fire or low pull all the CAPS pulls have "worked"

But I genuinely don't believe this to be a fault of the chute. It's much more plausible that they did not maintain airspeed and lost control or had some sort of engine/fuel issue

The way I was taught, if you have an issue above caps alt but lower than 2K AGL automatically pull. Don't dilly dally. I'd be curious in stats on Cirrus no chute dead stick landings actually. That's a fair point


I only have about 30 hrs in SR20.. my initial Cirrus training was in that (so about 10 hrs) then I rented it a handful of times while doing the SR22 transition. I've brought a few of my friends to the dark side :devil: and I've been right seat in a few SR20 recently this year. Man.. climbing out of Hemet on a warm day (about 30*C), though not hot, with field elev 1,500 that thing was struggling. This particular is a very old g1.. but man, talk about a slow climb. And yes, the engine temps certainly crept up. For the rate at which most SR20 rent at the value proposition just isn't there (for me) when comparing useful load and overall performance against the usual Cessna/Piper fleet. The 182RG in our club rents for nearly the same, I hate myself for saying this but I'd prefer that over the SR20 as it feels much better powered (I know, bigger engine, but speaking of renter value prop..). The SR22 is in a whole different ball park, that extra 50% power makes a HUGE difference. It's like if Douglas had offered a DC-10 only missing the rear engine.


That's a great point. I'm not aware of any "max alt" limitation but I am curious how would one fair pulling it at 16K on a hot day over the middle of the Sierras where the elevations are 12K - 14K
I have to disagree that 1700 fpm isn’t fast. It’s enough to seriously injure if not kill you without other measures of protection.

Jump off your 10-15 foot roof in a sitting position with nothing to break your fall. No don’t.
 
Last edited:
I have to disagree that 1700 fpm isn’t fast. It’s enough to seriously injure if not kill you without other measures of protection.

Jump off you 15 foot roof in a sitting position with nothing to break your fall. No don’t.
..but the trick is "without other measures of protection", not totally fair to comparing it jumping from a roof. You've got springy landing gear and the seats that make the crinkly sound when you get in them

this got me curious though..
my gf got me a skydiving coupon that I haven't used yet but I've been doing a ton of research into it. Apparently under the parachute you're going "about" 17 mph (after doing 120-ish without it).. and there's a technique to landing so you don't injure yourself, as 17 is "slow" but problematic if encountered without any technique. Explains why at OCN you always see people sort of "tumble" when they land I guess

According to Google that Cirrus 15-28 feet per second is about 10-20 mph. That seems comparable

Honestly, I'm not sure how slow anything can go under a pure parachute.
 
..but the trick is "without other measures of protection", not totally fair to comparing it jumping from a roof. You've got springy landing gear and the seats that make the crinkly sound when you get in them

this got me curious though..
my gf got me a skydiving coupon that I haven't used yet but I've been doing a ton of research into it. Apparently under the parachute you're going "about" 17 mph (after doing 120-ish without it).. and there's a technique to landing so you don't injure yourself, as 17 is "slow" but problematic if encountered without any technique. Explains why at OCN you always see people sort of "tumble" when they land I guess

According to Google that Cirrus 15-28 feet per second is about 10-20 mph. That seems comparable

Honestly, I'm not sure how slow anything can go under a pure parachute.
I wasn’t saying the cirrus chute is a death trap. But without those other measures, it is quite fast. That’s all. If those other measures aren’t there for some reason, you’re in a world of hurt.
 
..but the trick is "without other measures of protection", not totally fair to comparing it jumping from a roof. You've got springy landing gear and the seats that make the crinkly sound when you get in them

this got me curious though..
my gf got me a skydiving coupon that I haven't used yet but I've been doing a ton of research into it. Apparently under the parachute you're going "about" 17 mph (after doing 120-ish without it).. and there's a technique to landing so you don't injure yourself, as 17 is "slow" but problematic if encountered without any technique. Explains why at OCN you always see people sort of "tumble" when they land I guess

According to Google that Cirrus 15-28 feet per second is about 10-20 mph. That seems comparable

Honestly, I'm not sure how slow anything can go under a pure parachute.
You can flare a parachute and stop your descent rate, as long as you time it properly. You’ll still have some forward momentum though.
 
..but the trick is "without other measures of protection", not totally fair to comparing it jumping from a roof. You've got springy landing gear and the seats that make the crinkly sound when you get in them

this got me curious though..
my gf got me a skydiving coupon that I haven't used yet but I've been doing a ton of research into it. Apparently under the parachute you're going "about" 17 mph (after doing 120-ish without it).. and there's a technique to landing so you don't injure yourself, as 17 is "slow" but problematic if encountered without any technique. Explains why at OCN you always see people sort of "tumble" when they land I guess

According to Google that Cirrus 15-28 feet per second is about 10-20 mph. That seems comparable

Honestly, I'm not sure how slow anything can go under a pure parachute.

depends on the parachute type. round chutes have slower descend rates. As slow as <5m/s depending on many factors. They have the slowest descend rates. The bigger the chute and the lower the weight- the slower it descends. Can’t really flair or steer them. Only a little bit to help with the wind situation and obstacles. Skydiving chutes are wings and will definitely injure you if you forgo the proper landing procedure(like a glider). I’ve jumped both, pretty difficult to injure yourself with a round chute if you avoid obstacles and the wind is light
 
I'm fairly convinced that SR20s climb better than their reputation after flying one recently, but I agree that they are the kind of plane that you need to really understand the envelope in and not just pull the nose up. I also think they benefit a ton from SureFly installations.

I just noticed that Truckee has a tower and Tahoe doesn't. It used to be the opposite.

Truckee has had a tower for a while now. Started as seasonal and is now year round. That airport has gotten very busy.

Commercial airline flights to Tahoe have tapered substantially as cheap tickets disappeared over the years.

Conversely, Truckee traffic has increased in the summer months now supported by a summer season tower. Believe the tower is remote, but haven’t flown there in a couple of years.

Truckee tower was seasonal initially, but is year round now. It is a full Class D airspace with a physical control tower. Contract VFR tower, similar to most other low volume towered fields.
 
It is written by Mike Danko, an aggressive plaintiff's attorney in the Bay Area. He is fishing to get a call from the families of the victims by suggesting that the airplane or something related to it might be at fault.
Such a cynic. And I thought I could be bad.
However how does excluding DA help him make any case against the product? The plane has been in production over 18 years? This sets the bar very high and the fact that people have been taking off and training there with that exact plane for years makes it even harder.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
 
Such a cynic. And I thought I could be bad.
However how does excluding DA help him make any case against the product? The plane has been in production over 18 years? This sets the bar very high and the fact that people have been taking off and training there with that exact plane for years makes it even harder.

It doesn't exclude anything. I am just explaining the motivation behind the post so that people reading it will better understand the context.

Danko's motivation is to get the victim or victim's family to call him. Nothing more or less. To do that, he raises the possibility that someone other than the pilot or instructor may have been at fault. It is an effective way to obtain clients.

The fact that the aircraft model has been in production for over 18 years has no bearing on anything, much less the motivations of Mr. Danko.
 
Back
Top