Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Aviation Mishaps' started by Jamie Kirk, Nov 7, 2019.
Chute deployed but there was still significant fire.
According to FlightAware this may be the plane. RIP
Gotta charge your phone bud, you're worse than my wife...
6 nails in 3 tires, sitting here while the shop laughs at how I managed to get that many nails in.
This airport is local to me, wife saw the smoke from my daughters school down the street.
How many helicopters have parachutes?
Crash site compared to airport. My uneducated guess from nowhere is base to final turn and he overshot and banked to correct.
The terrain there slopes up and gives you a false view if not familiar.
Wife just sent me this.
I thought they trained the low level chute pull out of them in CSIP. So unfortunate. I agree that it looks like a wrong side rudder kick into an uncoordinated turn.
Based on where the crash happened he would have been 800’ AGL. If unfamiliar with the upslope terrain could have been much lower.
Doesn’t the cirrus chute require 900’?
Looking at the pic it came straight down. Just didn’t come down slow.
I thought it was 400 feet, flaps and CAPS? That said, that is for a controlled take off where you are climbing straight ahead. This sounds like a stall/spin, which makes things much different.
It's not the bank that kills you, it's the bottom rudder.
It's been done, out of a non-rotating pod on the top of the mast.
Edit: the owner's FB page shows him and a woman in the plane, yesterday.
why does it "sounds like stall spin"? Is there ATC somewhere that points to it?
I only ask that because there's plenty of loss of powerplant on final accidents with these high HP (for pistons) Contis. Another one. Everytime, the NTSB is as useful as tits on a boar when it comes to explaining the mystery of the continental fuel metering system(s). An old coworker of mine had his mech fuel pump go out on a conti-powered SR20 on descent to land, revealed on power-up on the level off. That'll get your attention as you immediately get behind the power curve and increase the now unintended sinking.
At any rate, I wouldn't discount the fuel delivery system giving this guy the finger upon throttle up, based on the commonality of this failure mode in this particular phase of flight. At that point there's nowhere to go but down, or in the case of this guy, the chute.
As to why the thing went up in flames upon landing on the roof? Based on that scene, this will be another NTSB "beats the hell outta us" useless report. Wish in one hand ---t on the other see which one fills up first type of thing. Glad to hear the occupants of the house got out. We don't need more collateral damage bad PR in this hobby as it is.
Hopefully this will be the last one. At least with an autorotation you have some control where you will land.
Wow. I imagine a vid will pop up soon on this with a crash in a residential area like that
Yes I did not understand that statement at all.. "what's your favorite number?" - blue
Look at his flight path. He turned base and was past the runway before cutting it sharp to turn final, almost made a 180* turn.
Either way I'm surprised that there would be this much collateral damage from the chute pull, I imagine they pulled the chute way too late too close to the ground
What is the lowest effective altitude of a chute pull?? If you stall a wing on base to final I’d imagine you’d be on the ground before chute even opens up fully right??
Depending on which generation anywhere from 400 to 600 AGL
The way I was taught, that unless you are absolutely positive you can make a safe landing then don't go under 2000 AGL without pulling
^which, depending on how you fly your pattern, on the base to final turn is going to be tight
#2.. never let your airspeed get under 90 knots indicated until you are established on final
There’s like one in the entire world and it’s still undergoing testing. That’s a lot different than the ridiculous comment of “witnesses thought it might have been a helicopter since a parachute was deployed.”
It is absurd how stupid the general population is
No report on the pilot yet?
My assumption is that whether or not he lost the engine, the "ground scar" and lack of debris field indicate the plane came straight down; this is what to me indicates a stall/spin. Had he been flying/gliding I think that the shallow angle would have been evident from what was left on the ground.
On another note, the NBC news site there's a photo of a deployed chute partially hanging over a palm tree:
Sorry, forgot to introduce myself. Migrating from the red board, non-pilot but son of a pilot, did a lot of flying with my dad. Am working to get myself to the place where I can afford to learn to become an aviator. I work for a company that sells aviation safety items, so I am a fan of these boards for professional and personal reasons. Keep up the good work - I like this forum!
The parachute, while hard to tell for sure, also does not appear like it had fully deployed yet
Welcome to POA!
I constantly make this point.
And pilots who have a fear of using “too much” bank in the pattern are the ones most likely to skid the turn, setting the stage for a stall/spin.
This video has been around a while, but looks into what sets the stage for accidents like this in a Cirrus. There have been at least half a dozen Cirrus fatals that fit this mold.
I make Cirrus jokes. I think Cirrus makes some imperfect compromises. I think their marketing and subculture can be...well... I still really like the way their pistons handle and fly. I also have like 300+ hours in a Grumman Tiger, which handles very similarly, and have always been someone who likes to have airspeed and not kick rudders outside of crosswind landings, so I fly the Cirrus well. It seems to be a disease among a certain subset of Cirrus drivers that they end up in these low level, terminal area stall/spins, in conditions where they should be super avoidable.
Yeah, and that is a bad habit that people who train on Cessnas get into that doesn't have nearly as forgiving a profile on a plane like a Cirrus.
I don't put great faith in ADS-B flight paths, but it is some indicator.
Exactly, and there is basically nothing the chute can do to save you there. This is just a situation you should not be getting into, in any airplane.
This brings up the recent Flightchops video explaining that GA thinks of a maneuvering speed as a max speed whereas the airliner world thinks of maneuvering speed as a minimum speed.
Pick a speed where you can make a 45-60 degree bank turn and never fly lower than that speed below 1000 feet. Add a pointer to your ASI.
Can you explain? I think I am misunderstanding.
Let’s say you’re banking to the right in right traffic. You noticed you overshot final and kick the right rudder to try and make it turn in quicker. The left wing makes more lift than the right wing in this situation and the right wing stalls, causing an inadvertent spin. Staying coordinated is key!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Even with fully deployed chute, the planes is descending around 25 mph, the landing gear is designed to absorb some of the impact but it’s not like a feather landing on a pillow. I can see a 2500lb+ plane plowing through a roof.
Langewiesche illustrated it nicely in Stick And Rudder:
I would never advocate extreme banks in the pattern. But even in a 60° bank, an accelerated but coordinated stall will just cause the nose to pitch down away from you, with no tendency to spin. One can recover from that just by releasing back pressure, whereas a spin in the pattern is almost always fatal, even if it begins with very modest bank.
To me, this stall/soon discussion is the real value of this forum. For those that don't understand stall/spin the points made above are invaluable. For those that do it never hurts to be reminded.
After watching my linked video for maybe the 20th time, two takeaways...
1) Paul Bertorelli is great, but I think he errs in his conclusion that excessive bank is the main culprit - it’s more complicated than that.
2) I can imagine being the check pilot here. We’re all human, an it’s easy to get frustrated at a student’s performance. I envision this starting out as a simulated engine out as part of the BFR. The instructor watches the student get lower and lower way too far out from the runway, unsure of even what runway the student is trying to set up for. Finally, barely 500’ AGL, the instructor yells “DAMMIT! I’ve got it!!!” and banks hard left while pulling to try to salvage a landing from a horrible approach. Not enough rudder and he’s surprised by the left wing dropping. Instinctively he applies hard right rudder but so low now he can’t bring himself to push quite hard enough to unload the wings and...as Langewiesche says, “OVERBOARD!” A nightmare scenario that’s all to easy for me to picture myself in.
The desire to pull that nose around with the rudder can be very strong in the pattern, especially when trying to line up with the runway when you overshoot base to final. Don't ever do it.
The Cirrus, especially the later ones are a very docile aircraft in my opinion and experience. But it is a speedy plane and sometimes if you mismanage the speed in the pattern (too fast) you can go from too fast to too slow quickly, again my experience. You have to watch the airspeed when you are adjusting things.
Cirrus and Garmin recognized this issue and have done a great job mitigating it with the ESP system. (Electronic Stability and Protection system) This system gives aural and visual warnings when you are nearing the edge of the envelope and will begin nudging the controls as you approach disaster. You really have to work at it to stall or spin these aircraft with this system. When training you either hold the AP disconnect button when doing a stall, because it will fight you, or you turn it off via the MFD. I never experience the system while flying solo, I heard it a few times training for my instrument rating when I was struggling with an approach, it gets you attention.
Cirrus recommends 100kts on down wind, 90 on base and 80 (full flaps), so following a cub can get interesting if you don't do a Cirrus pattern ( large pattern) ;>).
Man Eddie, any check ride pilot or CFI who loses it and yells "Dammit! I've got it!!!" and does that should never have become a CFI or check ride pilot.
And that’s exactly what I do with my Glasair. I have no stall warning indicator in the aircraft but I know that if I maintain 80 kts in the pattern, I can go up to 60 degrees of bank and not stall. Obviously a typical pattern wouldn’t require that but it’s just a simple way of preventing an accelerated stall.
The problem is two fold. 1) too many pilots don’t understand the AoB vs stall relationship because their CFIs never demonstrated an accelerated stall. 2) during high workload, a lot of pilots divert their attention outside the aircraft (HOU SR22 crash) and disregard aircraft control.
Did not mean to imply that such a performance was desireable - it’s clearly not.
But flight instructors are human, and sometimes frustration can get the best of them. Better if it were not so, but there you have it.