SR-20 down at Crystal Lake IL

Other reports on the PurpleBoard.
Father, two daughters 19 and 20, and one of the boyfriends.
Return to colllege, possible scud running, VFR pilot with 1200ft OVC, icing in the clouds.

This particular flying club is reported to have had 3 accidents in the last 4 yrs.
 
The visibility at this nearby reporting station went downhill right around the time of the accident. http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KPWK/2011/11/26/DailyHistory.html

The weather was predicted to be going downhill the rest of the day, so he knew if he was going to get his daughter back to college, it was a "now or maybe day after tomorrow" situation.

Bad, bad, bad scenario. Nine out of ten times, you make it. Today was not his day. May they rest in peace, and my thoughts are with the surviving family.
 
BillTIZ said:
Other reports on the PurpleBoard.
Father, two daughters 19 and 20, and one of the boyfriends.
Return to colllege, possible scud running, VFR pilot with 1200ft OVC, icing in the clouds.

This particular flying club is reported to have had 3 accidents in the last 4 yrs.
Click to expand...

Too many accidents happen as a result of a VFR pilot finding his/herself in weather they can't handle. Just because it may be legal does NOT make it safe.
 
Apache123 said:
I was in lake zurich / mundeline today (10 to 15 miles away). I don't see why a local vfr pilot would have gone up. Clouds have been very low and visibility poor (rain or fog all day).
Click to expand...

The guy was on a cross-country flight from Indiana. He wasn't local. Weather was reported as 10 miles and good ceilings just 30 minutes before the accident.

It looks like it went downhill quickly in your area. Combine that with flying toward the worsening conditions at 140 knots, and you've got a nasty situation developing.
 
What direction was the weather moving?

What was the weather 20 miles up wind of his destination 30 mins before arrival? Was it deteriorating or improving?

What was the "Plan B"? Pull the chute? :mad2:
 
Why was he all the way up by Crystal Lake if his daughter was going to Wheaton?
 
Certainly looks like ice could have been an issue, wet stratified clouds around freezing.
The Cirrus probably reacts negatively to ice faster than any plane I have ever flown. I dont know if this SR-20 had the TKS or not, but fully loaded and with less power than a SR-22 this could have gotten chute worthy in a hurry.
I've always wondered if ice could effect a deployed chute.
 
Last edited:
taters said:
The Cirrus probably reacts negatively to ice faster than any plane I have ever flown. I dont know if this SR-20 had the TKS or not, but fully loaded and with less power than a SR-22 this could have gotten chute worthy in a hurry.
Click to expand...

An SR22 turbo with FIKI TKS is on my list of aircraft that I wouldn't want to take into icing conditions, period.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
An SR22 turbo with FIKI TKS is on my list of aircraft that I wouldn't want to take into icing conditions, period.
Click to expand...

Why?
I don't know much about them, I'm just asking.
 
Apache123 said:
I was in lake zurich / mundeline today (10 to 15 miles away). I don't see why a local vfr pilot would have gone up. Clouds have been very low and visibility poor (rain or fog all day).

http://www.aopa.org/asf/psa/178seconds.html

I don't understand the mindset of those who will do vfr into imc.
Click to expand...

I was driving from in that cold rain the entire north-south length of Route 53/355 from almost Wisconsin to Joliet. There were times when I had 1/4 mile vis on the ground.
 
Last edited:
scottd said:
I'm just the opposite. I've got about 300 hours in this aircraft in icing conditions and it works extremely well. In fact, so well, I think some owners think they can fly in icing conditions for longer than they should.
Click to expand...

bluee said:
Why?
I don't know much about them, I'm just asking.
Click to expand...

Primarily because its wing design is adversely affected by icing, and it doesn't have enough power to get out of trouble. If it keeps the ice off (which shouldn't be an issue so long as you hit he "on" switch at the proper time and keep the tank full), then that's fine. Have an issue and build up ice, bad.

The planes I fly into icing can handle ice accumulation significantly better if there's a system failure. All systems fail. Typically, they fail at the worst possible time, and there's not always anything you can do to prevent that. The Cirrus mentality typically seems to be one of "No problem, it won't fail." A Cirrus uses most of its available power for normal operations, and I find its performance to be rather lackluster at that (certainly a higher percent power than most other aircraft). What sort of margin does that give you? It doesn't take much ice to create a significant increase in stall speed, especially with a hot wing design.

In the Aztec, I've had a complete failure of the boots, landed with over an inch accumulated. There was nothing I could do about it, I had to get down through the icing layer, which was worse than I expected. The plane carried the ice like it wasn't even there. A Cirrus? I'd expect the result to be different. For one, if the Aztec accumulated an inch, the Cirrus would probably accumulate more (thinner wing = faster accumulation). Second, the Cirrus would handle that ice worse.

I've gotten mixed ice on the Aztec, where the boots wouldn't get all of it off (that is a typical negative with boots). Lost 10 mph. Went from LOP to ROP, gained my 10 mph back, and got out of there as fast as I could, which was pretty quick.
 
scottd said:
But I am curious what makes you believe that the aircraft was in the clouds at or above the freezing level?
Click to expand...

What makes you think that they were not? Climbing near the tops would have put them in probably the worst of the icing conditions, plausible there could have been a loss of control in IMC making the situation even worse. Only time will tell what really happened and more often than not, the factors that seem obvious at first glance aren't the main cause.
 
bluee said:
Why?
I don't know much about them, I'm just asking.
Click to expand...

Ted is right on, basically you have a laminar flow somewhat "jet like" wing with no protection.very efficient ice collector ..I have lost 30 KIAS (in an SR-22) in ice that otherwise wouldn't cause me much trouble.
 
Last edited:
scottd said:
I can point you to plenty of other miracle pilots. It works quite well.
Click to expand...

300 hours in icing conditions and all in a Cirrus?:rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
scottd said:
I can point you to plenty of other miracle pilots. It works quite well until it breaks.
Click to expand...

FTFY.

The Cirrus philosophy is "It won't break." That just isn't how the real world works. It's what I consider a marginal airplane with an excellent marketing department.
 
taters said:
300 hours in icing conditions and all in a Cirrus?:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

And I'd question if it was real 300 hours in icing conditions (in which case, why did he spend that much time there?), or 300 hours with TKS on? The two are very different.

Scott, I know you know more about the science of icing than I ever will. Clearly, our philosophies on icing are different.
 
scottd said:
Sure, if the pilot fails to use the system properly, that's bad...true of any aircraft with an IPS, not just a Cirrus. If used properly, it works great and keeps the wing very clean on the leading edges and well behind those protected surfaces.
Click to expand...

Sure, as long as it works. And I'm not knocking TKS overall (although it's not my preference). Clearly, it has its advantages - Wiggins converted all of their Caravans from boots to TKS, a very expensive changeover.

Who dictates the "Cirrus" mentality? All of the Cirrus owners that I've come to know don't have that mentality. In fact, it is just the opposite. If you run into a Cirrus pilot that has this mentality, please send them to http://cirruspilots.org to join.
Click to expand...

Apparently you're one who has that mentality given your posts. You haven't addressed what happens WHEN it fails.

Icing accidents in the Cirrus are similar in frequency to most other aircraft given the size of the fleet and hours flown.
Click to expand...

I look at statistics very suspiciously, as they rarely tell you much.

Statistics say when an engine fails on a twin, the pilot crashes. They say nothing about the safe landings.
 
I have iced up a FIKI Sr22GTX turbo a couple of times and its not fun. And I have really really iced up some airplanes, and kept them in the icing conditions for extended periods of time. The Cirrus is one that I will take through the icing levels and get out, and even then I don't like it. I have not been overpowered by ice in the Cirrus but saw negative effects very quickly. I have iced up the Beech 99 pretty good and never saw a flinch in airspeed. The Cirrus almost immediately shows adverse effects.
 
First off, this was not an ice accident. The relevant Skew T is posted here.

Ted, I also teach ice. I get into the top of a capped layer I get a block clearance, and let the student accrete ice. Then we attempt to climb out. Then we clean up the bird (it is FIKI), and do it again, this time cleaning it up before climbout.

i learn a lot about the individual student in these scenarios and they learn a lot about how much they are willing to tolerate. Some ice it to the point where they can only descend. ALL of them subsequently go out and buy an ice equipped aircraft after we're done. Right now, it's ideal, as the surface is well above 0C (and along comes Ed shortly).

Someone has to teach and get pilots educated before they kill themselves. I don't kill engines in the winter. They get so cold I'd never get a succesfull restart.
 

Attachments

  • KUGN1500Z.doc
    109.5 KB · Views: 24
Last edited:
scottd said:
There are pilots that fly a Cirrus and I teach them - has nothing to do with philosophy. It happens to have a TKS system and I'm comfortable with that. I am well aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the system. Part of the challenge is teaching a pilot to have an out when the system fails. I have no experience with failures in this aircraft because it has worked like a champ every single time. We've grounded an airplane once or twice because the preflight system checks failed, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

So if I read correctly, this means you don't have experience with icing up the plane. You have experience with everything working properly.

The reason why I don't want to take a Cirrus into icing has nothing to do with how well the TKS works, it has to do with what happens when it doesn't work. Bruce's Seneca, Dave's P-Baron, my Aztec, the 310, the Navajo,you don't want to fly into ice without being appropriately equipped, but handle it a lot better when the system fails.

When it fails...we use our planned out which is a constant discussion and changes as the environment changes around us. If that out isn't available, we look at plan B and we ultimately will use the other safety tool (the BRS) when all else fails or there's no time to react. Failures happen, but you shouldn't have to die when it does.
Click to expand...
I agree, which is why I choose the aircraft I fly carefully.

bbchien said:
Someone has to teach and get pilots educated before they kill themselves.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my goal with my instruction.
 
Just catching up on this thread, I learned a new phrase I don't want to ever need to utter... "'Chute worthy".
 
And it won't be too long before somebody on this forum wonders why the population at large thinks we're all idiots and that flying in a small plane is a death wish. Doh, here's one more reason.

Maybe instead of telling new PPL's they now have "a license to learn" we should instead tell them "now it's legal to go do something stupid and kill yourself and most of your family, since that's what you'll probably do anyway."
 
wabower said:
And it won't be too long before somebody on this forum wonders why the population at large thinks we're all idiots and that flying in a small plane is a death wish. Doh, here's one more reason.

Maybe instead of telling new PPL's they now have "a license to learn" we should instead tell them "now it's legal to go do something stupid and kill yourself and most of your family, since that's what you'll probably do anyway."
Click to expand...


Hmmm. I have mixed thoughts about that statement. On one hand, I think it is unfair predicting the demise of mostly reasonable, and rational people. On the other hand, I think you're correct. We are unleashed with a license to learn, which is also a license to really get into trouble unless we exercise extremely good judgment, AND are somewhat fortunate, or perhaps make our own luck.
 
When you low-time young bucks tire of beating on each other, you might be interested to know that this subject was been debated back when you were trying to figure out which end of the pacifier worked best. ;)

Guess which slick-wing M and B make airplanes were prominently mentioned as no bueno when icing was encountered?

Ted DuPuis said:
So if I read correctly, this means you don't have experience with icing up the plane. You have experience with everything working properly.

The reason why I don't want to take a Cirrus into icing has nothing to do with how well the TKS works, it has to do with what happens when it doesn't work. Bruce's Seneca, Dave's P-Baron, my Aztec, the 310, the Navajo,you don't want to fly into ice without being appropriately equipped, but handle it a lot better when the system fails.

I agree, which is why I choose the aircraft I fly carefully.



That's exactly my goal with my instruction.
Click to expand...
 
mikea said:
100 hours! The guy was practically Waldo Pepper.
Click to expand...

Read the article:

Ray Harris had been flying for several years and in the last two years had logged more than 100 hours piloting the Cirrus-SR20, said Ronnie Carmin, the secretary-treasurer of the Marion Pilots Club, a group of 10 pilots who together own the plane.
Click to expand...

My speculation is that this is a typical VFR into IMC, which is too bad. If you're flying an SR-20 50+ hours a year you should get the IR or at least figure out how to work the A/P.
 
dmccormack said:
Read the article:



My speculation is that this is a typical VFR into IMC, which is too bad. If you're flying an SR-20 50+ hours a year you should get the IR or at least figure out how to work the A/P.
Click to expand...

I'm amazed that there is a Cirrus pilot who doesn't know how to use the A/P.
 
I think it's better phrased, "You have now demonstrated the absolute bare minimum required by law and good sense to carry yourself and passengers aloft. We recommend you continue your training and learning to move away from the bottom mark on the scale."

:) :) :)
 
scottd said:
Sure, if the pilot fails to use the system properly, that's bad...true of any aircraft with an IPS, not just a Cirrus. If used properly, it works great and keeps the wing very clean on the leading edges and well behind those protected surfaces.



Who dictates the "Cirrus" mentality? All of the Cirrus owners that I've come to know don't have that mentality. In fact, it is just the opposite. If you run into a Cirrus pilot that has this mentality, please send them to http://cirruspilots.org to join.



Icing accidents in the Cirrus are similar in frequency to most other aircraft given the size of the fleet and hours flown.
Click to expand...

I have seen the "cirrus mentality" as well.

Its the "if i get into trouble i will pull the chute" mentality.

Its also the idea that they are a superior pilot because they have a shiny plane. They walk into the FBO like the just landed a G5.
 
n20junkie said:
I have seen the "cirrus mentality" as well.

Its the "if i get into trouble i will pull the chute" mentality.

Its also the idea that they are a superior pilot because they have a shiny plane. They walk into the FBO like the just landed a G5.
Click to expand...

It's called 'more money than brains'.
 
n20junkie said:
Its also the idea that they are a superior pilot because they have a shiny plane. They walk into the FBO like the just landed a G5.
Click to expand...

Which is funny, because the G5 pilots I talk to have typically been very nice people who say, regarding their aircraft, "It beats working."
 
I saw this too, sounds like they pulled the chute too late. Too bad, so sad, dont fly VFR into IMC.

Shoulda engaged the autopilot and set the heading bug to 180 degrees when he knew he was going to be in the clouds. That's 2 buttons and one twist that would have saved them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top