Cirrus Pilot gets it right

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,034
Location
Near DC
Display Name

Display name:
Jaybird180
Kudos to this pilot in NTSB Identification: ERA12LA473

As I read the story, I began to ask myself "when is he going to pull...is he going to pull...why doesn't he pull".

SPOILER: It's a happy ending. 4 uninjured

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120723X43615&key=1

NTSB Identification: ERA12LA473
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, July 22, 2012 in Pickens, SC
Aircraft: CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22, registration: N138CK
Injuries: 4 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

On July 22, 2012, at 1705 eastern daylight time, N138CK, a Cirrus SR-22, was substantially damaged during a forced landing in Pickens, South Carolina. The commercial pilot and three passengers were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the flight that departed Cobb County Airport-Mc Collum Field (RYY), Atlanta, Georgia, and was destined for Piedmont Triad International Airport (GSO), Greensboro, North Carolina. The business flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91.

According to the pilot, he fueled the aircraft "to the tabs" and performed a preflight and run-up inspection prior to takeoff from RYY. No abnormalities were noted during the inspections. The pilot departed, and as the airplane climbed through an altitude of 800 feet, he noted the oil temperature was "in the green" (about 190 deg) and the airspeed was about 130 knots.

A few minutes later, the pilot felt a "wiggle," or a slight vibration from the engine, as the airplane continued to climb. The engine RPMs began to rise rapidly and he noted an engine oil pressure warning on the primary flight display (PFD). The pilot applied full mixture, turned the fuel pump on, and manipulated the throttle. He also assured the magnetos were in the "on" position. The pilot thought he may have had a propeller overspeed condition, so he reduced the throttle; however, the RPMs remained high. He then secured the engine and declared an emergency with Greer Approach Control, with whom he had been communicating. The air traffic controller informed the pilot that Pickens County Airport (LQK) was at his "10:00 and 4 miles," and the pilot turned toward the field and prepared for a forced landing. He noted the RPMs were not decreasing as he pitched the airplane down for the descent (the airspeed was about 110-120 knots). The pilot attempted unsuccessfully to restart the engine, and then re-secured it while on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern for runway 23 at LQK. He believed he had plenty of airspeed and altitude, when he turned base at 1,200 feet, and added one notch of flaps.

As the pilot added the flaps, he felt the handling characteristics of the airplane change, and it began to feel "mushy." He then retracted the notch of flaps and the condition became worse. As the airplane descended through 1,000 feet, the pilot felt as if he had "lost control of the airplane" and decided to pull the emergency parachute. The parachute deployed and within seconds the airplane settled into the trees. The airplane remained suspended in the trees until emergency personnel arrived on-scene and rescued the occupants.

Examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed the presence of oil on the underside of the airplane. An examination of the engine was planned for a later date after the airplane was recovered from the trees.
 
Last edited:
I thought 1,200 feet would be too low to pull the chute? Glad to hear no one was injured.
 
I am guessing that a prop able to windmill to high speeds with little to no resistance from the engine is like throwing out a drag chute....
 
Nice to hear a story with a happy ending like that. I dis the chutes a lot, but I have to admit there is a set of circumstances when they can make the difference between a safe landing and crispy critters.
 
I think he made the best decision at the time if he wasn't going to make the field, but I can't say he got it "right." Let me preference by saying Monday morning quarterbacking is easy and sometimes it easy to see after the fact, but sounds like a massive oil leak that resulted in the the prop reverting to low pitch like it should do. I don't understand why he shut the engine down and then tried to restart it. At least if you are going to secure it and try and "save" it the at least make sure you got the field made. Not try and restart after you realize you shouldn't have turned it off. Now you have an engine that needs needs rebuilt and a wrecked aircraft.

All that being said..I am glad nobody was hurt and it looks like the chute does help out in those bad situations. Good job pulling it and not "Trying to stretch it!"

Cheers
 
I thought 1,200 feet would be too low to pull the chute? Glad to hear no one was injured.

If not inverted, the BRS system has been demonstrated to work at 400' and over 180 knots although both are outside the published 900' and 130 knot envelope.
 
I think he made the best decision at the time if he wasn't going to make the field, but I can't say he got it "right." Let me preference by saying Monday morning quarterbacking is easy and sometimes it easy to see after the fact, but sounds like a massive oil leak that resulted in the the prop reverting to low pitch like it should do. I don't understand why he shut the engine down and then tried to restart it. At least if you are going to secure it and try and "save" it the at least make sure you got the field made. Not try and restart after you realize you shouldn't have turned it off. Now you have an engine that needs needs rebuilt and a wrecked aircraft.

All that being said..I am glad nobody was hurt and it looks like the chute does help out in those bad situations. Good job pulling it and not "Trying to stretch it!"

Cheers

I would agree with that, although in the end he may have well needed to pull the chute anyway. There is no way in hell I would try to "save the engine" when I need it to get back on the ground safely. The engine was already toast a few seconds after it lost all oil pressure.

Regardless, glad it worked out.
 
I think he made the best decision at the time if he wasn't going to make the field, but I can't say he got it "right." Let me preference by saying Monday morning quarterbacking is easy and sometimes it easy to see after the fact, but sounds like a massive oil leak that resulted in the the prop reverting to low pitch like it should do. I don't understand why he shut the engine down and then tried to restart it. At least if you are going to secure it and try and "save" it the at least make sure you got the field made. Not try and restart after you realize you shouldn't have turned it off. Now you have an engine that needs needs rebuilt and a wrecked aircraft.

All that being said..I am glad nobody was hurt and it looks like the chute does help out in those bad situations. Good job pulling it and not "Trying to stretch it!"

Cheers

My thought on this was that he felt a vibration and perhaps he thought the engine might depart the mount.
 
Definitely could be the case. I was not there so I cannot say, but he did think it was OK to try and restart. Anywho it worked out.
 
Definitely could be the case. I was not there so I cannot say, but he did think it was OK to try and restart. Anywho it worked out.

It worked out for him and that is the important thing.

It seems to me there is a training opportunity here also. That opportunity is to talk about what to do with a contrary engine.

Under what circumstances should the engine be secured on a single engine aircraft? To me it seems that unless the engine is vibrating so heavily that it is trying to depart the aircraft any engine that is making some power is better than no engine.

I'm not suggesting the engine was making power when the pilot shut it down. I don't know the circumstances (obviously). Just typing about when to shut one down.
 
Sounds like a great discussion about the subject. So the report say "the pilot felt a "wiggle," or a slight vibration from the engine. To me it does not sound like the engine was vibrating so bad that it needed to be shut down. The "wiggle" in my opionion is the prop governer trying to maintain the constant speed on the prop while it is loosing oil pressure. At least I am assuming they lost oil, bucause the prop when hi-speed, the oil pressure warning came on and the belly was coated in oil. So I will personally use the engine as long as it is going to benefit me to do so. If you have ever ran an engine out of oil it will usually run quite a while longer than you think and will make awful noises before it finally bites it. At 4miles to the nearest airport he probably would have had to shut the engine down before it shut itself down.

Cheers
 
The one thing I find wrong with the pilot's control here is (as I understand it):
He was making an engine-out approach.
He extended flaps.
Airplane felt mushy.
<At this point, the only reason I can think of for the airplane to feel mushy is that he was trying to arrest his descent and was increasing the angle of attack>
He retracted the flaps and things got worse
<If you clean up the airplane without lowering the nose you're going to get even closer to the stall>
He pulled the chute <good call>.


I have the impression that he nearly stalled the airplane. Good that the chute saved him. But what I'd expect a competent airman to do (and YES this is armchair quarterbacking) is fly the airplane with sufficient energy margin all the way to the ground. If he didn't have a chute, I wonder if he'd have stalled it in.

Just like an engine failure immediately after takeoff, it takes a lot of self discipline to NOT pull back when you see the trees getting closer. But it's clear that it's better to hit the trees with the airplane level and under control than it is to stall and lose your control.

Anyway, that's my opinion... and it's based solely on what I interpreted from what I read. I'm glad the pilot pulled the chute, and I'm glad they all were uninjured. Heck, the nylon approach and landing may have been a safer (lower energy) thing than flying into the treetops at landing speed.
 
Tim
Your post reminded me of something my DPE shared with me about engine-out. He said that once at the point of landing to get to 'min sink' which is just above the stall, that it will offer the most time to troubleshoot
 
Tim
Your post reminded me of something my DPE shared with me about engine-out. He said that once at the point of landing to get to 'min sink' which is just above the stall, that it will offer the most time to troubleshoot

Hmmm, min sink and just above stall doesn't compute for me...that's pretty much max sink for the frankenkota...anybody else?
 
From 1200ft AGL down wind to base turn, to mushy controls, sounds as if he lost control of his airspeed. Get thy nose down, lest the earth rise up and smack thee.

A 4 mile no brainier glide turned into a chute on short final. Not all are so lucky, not all have chutes.

Wiggle, oil loss, unless the engine feels like it is going to really vibrate, keep it running until landing assured. Unless the engine seizes, the prop will keep windmilling anyway. Might as well keep it at the zero drag rpm.
 
Yeah I'm not agreeing with the "Got it right". From the narrative it seems to me the pilot had a textbook power-off 180, effectively failing his commercial pilot check ride. I agree that "mushy feeling" described was probably the pilot losing control of his airspeed. I realize I'm pretty seriously Monday morning quarterbacking here, but jeez, there's a reason this stuff is on your checkride, don't you owe it to yourself and your passengers to stay proficient in it when you need it?

Jaybird180 and FrankenkotaFlyer, yes indeed, Minimum Sink speed is ROUGHLY halfway between best glide speed and stall speed, and will give you more time to troubleshoot on the way down. But before you get to 1000 AGL, definitely accelerate back to best glide speed, lest you not have enough energy to flare. Min sink for a given weight is easy to find in smooth air. Decrease your speed from best glide speed in five knot increments and give it about 20 seconds to stabilize. Monitor your VSI. When you find the speed that gives you the least FPM decent, you have found your min sink speed. Barry Schiff had an article about this a few years ago in AOPA Pilot.

You learn lots of cool stuff as a glider pilot. You learn that best glide speed, but not glide ratio, changes with weight, you learn that you want to fly faster into a headwind, and slower with a tailwind, you learn about min sink speed, and you sure as HELL learn how to make your intended touchdown point!
 
Last edited:
I feel the pilot could have handled the engine out better but I applaud him for not letting that turn into a fatal accident. I suspect a lot of us are a lot better at keyboard, forum flying than handling things in a real emergency. Mitigating the results of less than perfect actions is a good thing and was done in this case.
 
Q: What's the danger of a prop overspeed?

I also think he was close to stall from distraction with the engine. I still think (pending answer to the above question) his thought process was correct regarding engine operation (shut down-startup).

I'm open to a different perspective.
 
Q: What's the danger of a prop overspeed?

I also think he was close to stall from distraction with the engine. I still think (pending answer to the above question) his thought process was correct regarding engine operation (shut down-startup).

I'm open to a different perspective.
Prop overspeed is a term used for turboprop engines. You really cant overspeed a recip prop due to the fact that it connected to the crankshaft and the drag from the engine will not allow it. In a turboprop the prop can start driving the turbine wheel and "Run Away." The danger in a prop overspeed is eventually the prop will come apart.

Cheers
 
Any engine with a prop governor can overspeed. Overspeed refers to the prop speed vs. the desired or "on-speed" condition. If the crank and prop are turning at 2,700 and the governor is asking for 2,400, an overspeed condition exists.
Prop overspeed is a term used for turboprop engines. You really cant overspeed a recip prop due to the fact that it connected to the crankshaft and the drag from the engine will not allow it. In a turboprop the prop can start driving the turbine wheel and "Run Away." The danger in a prop overspeed is eventually the prop will come apart.

Cheers
 
So why is there a RPM limit on CS engines?

Because there is an RPM Limit. You don't want to purposely overspeed your engine. Its not good for it. No matter if it is constant speed or fixed pitch it is still an indication of engine speed. Unless it is a geared engine of course. For the most part you cannot do it anyway at full throttle you should be at the redline. If you enter a dive then you could over speed the engine. A prop overspeed is where the prop starts driving the turbine untill it destructs. Its not really possible in a reciprocating engine.

Cheers
 
Which in turbine engines only happens if the primary, secondard and fuel-topping governor all fail. Does that ever happen?

GMAB.

Because there is an RPM Limit. You don't want to purposely overspeed your engine. Its not good for it. No matter if it is constant speed or fixed pitch it is still an indication of engine speed. Unless it is a geared engine of course. For the most part you cannot do it anyway at full throttle you should be at the redline. If you enter a dive then you could over speed the engine. A prop overspeed is where the prop starts driving the turbine untill it destructs. Its not really possible in a reciprocating engine.

Cheers
 
Wiggle, oil loss, unless the engine feels like it is going to really vibrate, keep it running until landing assured. Unless the engine seizes, the prop will keep windmilling anyway. Might as well keep it at the zero drag rpm.

The POH says that in case of loss of oil pressure accompanied by an increase in oil temperature you should adjust the throttle to idle and choose a suitable landing field. I suppose that's what you are saying?

Even though it says that continued high power operation could be catastrophic, It doesn't call for shutting the engine off -- just throttle to idle. Same thing if a prop governor failure causes an over speed. I've wondered why you wouldn't pull the mixture instead.
 
Which in turbine engines only happens if the primary, secondard and fuel-topping governor all fail. Does that ever happen?

GMAB.
On what engine? I assume you are talking about the pt6? There are many different models and designs that all work differently. I don't pretend to know them all. The point in my comment was that the term "Overspeed" is "Usually" associated with a turboprop. Most of them have procedures for it. Most Recips do not. I doesn't matter to me if you want to classify it as anything above what the governor wants. Yes technically that is over the speed commanded, but you can still pull it back with the throttle. Anyway I thought about your question about how often it happens and I did a Google search. To your point I don't think it does happen very often. But I really didn't say that it was a common thing either. I personally had a prop overspeed in a Convair 580 in Honduras and had to feather the engine. I also found a few stories from around.

From the Aviation Herold:
A Sunstate de Havilland Dash 8-400 on behalf of Qantas, flight QF-2285 from Melbourne,VI to Launceston,TA (Australia) with 60 people on board, was climbing through FL154 out of Melbourne when the crew declared emergency reporting an engine malfunction, the engine was shut down. During the approach to Melbourne the crew requested medical services on standby for a passenger on medical oxygen, the right hand engine had been shut down due to propeller overspeed. The aircraft landed safely on Melbourne’s runway 27 about 30 minutes after departure.
From the Atlanta journal:
Problem with Brazil-made planes cited
Flight 2311 investigators check debris for `propeller overspeed'

Date: April 8, 1991 Publication: The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution Page Number: A/1 Word Count: 641
BRUNSWICK, Ga. - The type of commuter airplane that crashed here Friday has a history of "propeller overspeed," a problem that can cause engine or propeller damage, federal investigators said Sunday. At least seven other incidences of overspeed have occurred in the Brazilian-made Embraer 120 since it was introduced in 1985, said Susan Coughlin, vice chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board. Investigators are trying to determine whether the condition

Just thought I would share that.
Cheers
 
On what engine? I assume you are talking about the pt6? There are many different models and designs that all work differently. I don't pretend to know them all. The point in my comment was that the term "Overspeed" is "Usually" associated with a turboprop. Most of them have procedures for it. Most Recips do not.

Not being a turbo-prop guy, this has me curious. Is it because the turbines are much more capable of going overspeed at minor power settings than the recip? At 1/3 to 1/2 power setting it's a rare recip that would overspeed with the prop against the minimum pitch stops, I'm guessing turboprops basically have no minimum pitch stops so they can start with minimal load?
 
Not being a turbo-prop guy, this has me curious. Is it because the turbines are much more capable of going overspeed at minor power settings than the recip? At 1/3 to 1/2 power setting it's a rare recip that would overspeed with the prop against the minimum pitch stops, I'm guessing turboprops basically have no minimum pitch stops so they can start with minimal load?
Mainly it is because the are "Free Turbine Design" or most are free spinning. So if you walk up to a turboprop and grab the prop you can spin it as fast as your arm can throw it. The only resistance is the roller and ball bearing friction which is minimal at best. There are still pitch locks but there are many many different prop/engine combos and they don't really help once the airflow starts turning the engine. Anyway in the right condition with failing hardware it is possible and you have to feather.
 
Ahh, OK. The only ones I had any experience at all with (and that was very minimal) were geared Garrets.
 
I feel the pilot could have handled the engine out better but I applaud him for not letting that turn into a fatal accident. I suspect a lot of us are a lot better at keyboard, forum flying than handling things in a real emergency. Mitigating the results of less than perfect actions is a good thing and was done in this case.

Did he REALLY not let it turn into fatal accident? Or was he just lucky enough to be flying a plane with a panic handle? How would the outcome have been different if it wasn't a Cirrus?
 
Did he REALLY not let it turn into fatal accident? Or was he just lucky enough to be flying a plane with a panic handle? How would the outcome have been different if it wasn't a Cirrus?

My guess is that he would have initially done the same thing thinking he had it down. He would have misjudged the speed and altitude he needed to carry in the same way. He would have stalled the plane and crashed with either serious injury or fatalities. People on this and other boards would have used the accident as an example of why we need to practice engine outs on a regular basis. None of that would have brought the pilot or passengers back. Just my guess.
 
Plane was lost before the pilot realized it.

Mmqb but i would have planted that sucker in a field.
 
My guess is that he would have initially done the same thing thinking he had it down. He would have misjudged the speed and altitude he needed to carry in the same way. He would have stalled the plane and crashed with either serious injury or fatalities. People on this and other boards would have used the accident as an example of why we need to practice engine outs on a regular basis. None of that would have brought the pilot or passengers back. Just my guess.
Emergency power off landings in a Cirrus are no jokes and I doubt he would have made it given the narrative.

Even when stalling the SR22, I've never felt mushy controls due to the springs in the controls. If he was 4 miles out at 1,200, he was never going to make the rwy. On the other hand, I've been to Pickens, SC and you have plenty of room for crash landings outside the airport that will be survivable which is probably what I would have done over pulling the chute.
 
4 miles out at 1,200, he was never going to make the rwy.

The narrative said he turned BASE at 1200 feet. It doesn't say the altitude that the engine started to fail, only a "few minutes" after passing 800 feet.

That brings up a good point. I don't care what kind of single engine piston you're flying, if you're turning base out of gliding distance of the runway, you're doing it wrong.
 
Back
Top