SR-22 Fatal Crash at Faribault, MN

K

KennyFlys

Guest
Completely demolished but there are conflicting reports between four aboard to saying two survivors and no survivors.

At Least 2 Dead in Faribault Airport Plane Crash

The aircraft was based out of Aberdeen, SD.

Follow Up Story From Later

FAA confirmed four aboard, two perished, no condition reported on two survivors. Given the wreckage scene, they would have to be a miraculous survival and recovery.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Later reports state that none survived. The pilot was a doctor related to the Mayo center founders. The pax included his teenage son, his girlfriend and a schoolmate. Very tragic. The crash occurred on the doctor's second attempt to land on the same runway. I believe one report said he had very recently started flying the Cirrus.
 
There is nothing challenging about Faribult. Any idea what the weather was Lance? Which runway was this on?
 
I was able to dig this up from Wunderground.com but I cannot get a URL to work beyond 24 hours on NOAA. If anyone else can, I'd like to know how. I was attempting to get data back for 120 hours.

Wunderground for Sunday, November 25th:
Temperature:
Mean Temperature......37 °F / 2 °C
Max Temperature........48 °F / 8 °C
Min Temperature.........26 °F / -3 °C
Degree Days:
Heating Degree Days....28
Moisture:
Dew Point...................25 °F / -3 °C
Average Humidity.........65
Maximum Humidity........86
Minimum Humidity.........40
Precipitation:
Precipitation................0.00 in / 0.00 cm
Sea Level Pressure:
Sea Level Pressure.......29.97 in / 1015 hPa
Wind:
Wind Speed................10 mph / 16 km/h (South)
Max Wind Speed..........20 mph / 32 km/h
Max Gust Speed..........29 mph / 47 km/h
Visibility.......................8 miles / 13 kilometers
Click to expand...
It doesn't appear to have been that bad. No cloud data but visibility looks decent.
 
Here, This oughta do it. Big gusting crosswind. That little puddle of a blob sure makes one think of a stall spin drop on base to final, or a loss of control. Runway 12/30 4200 feet.

Yet another Cirrus pilot behind the plane?

Metar Kfbl 251856z Auto 19013g20kt 10sm Clr 07/m04 A2979 Rmk Ao2
Metar Kfbl 251917z Auto 19015g21kt 10sm Clr 08/m04 A2979 Rmk Ao2
Metar Kfbl 251936z Auto 19013g24kt 10sm Clr 08/m04 A2979 Rmk Ao2
Metar Kfbl 251956z Auto 20017g25kt 10sm Clr 08/m04 A2979 Rmk Ao2
Metar Kfbl 252016z Auto 19013g25kt 10sm Clr 08/m04 A2978 Rmk Ao2
Metar Kfbl 252036z Auto 20015g21kt 10sm Clr 08/m04 A2978 Rmk Ao2
Metar Kfbl 252056z Auto 19015g22kt 10sm Clr 08/m04 A2977 Rmk Ao2
Metar Kfbl 252116z Auto 20010g21kt 10sm Clr 09/m04 A2977 Rmk Ao2
Metar Kfbl 252136z Auto 19012g22kt 10sm Clr 09/m04 A2977 Rmk Ao2
Metar Kfbl 252157z Auto 19011g17kt 10sm Clr 08/m04 A2977 Rmk Ao2
Metar Kfbl 252216z Auto 20010g15kt 10sm Clr 08/m04 A2978 Rmk Ao2
Metar Kfbl 252236z Auto 22007kt 10sm Clr 08/m04 A2979 Rmk Ao2
Metar Kfbl 252256z Auto 22008kt 10sm Clr 07/m04 A2980 Rmk Ao2
 
Last edited:
This guy was flying a high performance, straight leg and his only weather was a 70°, 15-20 knot crosswind?

Am I missing something? :dunno:
 
bruce the crash was about 1/3 way down the runway, just on the downwind side. I suspect a stall off a botched go around in gusty conditions. Too bad he apparently ruled out the grass for whatever reason, directly into the wind.
 
Sigh. Waste of a perfectly good airplane.
I'm sad for the loss of life, but this is clearly a pilot who's not keeping up with the bird.

Cirrus customers....why is it always a Cirrus?
 
Bruce,

I dont think this one is the typical Cirrus wreck with the under experienced pilot. Discussion elsewhere has shown the Doc was a active member of COPA and regarded by his peers as a "very rational and considered pilot" Reports that he had just taken delivery of the aircraft are true. Reports fail to recognize that this was his second SR-22 however, and that he had just upgraded to the G3.
 
Yeah, but it was a 4200 foot runway with a not even 20 knot crosswind that the record shows he couldn't handle, and he tried again. It's pretty hard to argue post hoc that he was that good. And, he never consided the 600 foot landing roll in the grass....or 20 @ Faribault, Runway 18 at FCM, or 20 @ RST, or 22 @ MSP. which would have been EASY makes. Doesn't appear very rational or considered in this light. He was apparently on his second try...with PAX aboard!

What is this thing we call....judgement that is strangely missing in so many Cirri (and in fairness, other) fatal smushes? Yes it's a Pain in the ____ to divert. But it's a heck of a smaller problem then dying.

The difficulty I have, is (1) a not even quite 20 (10, 11, or 12 knot G 17) knot xwind should be perfectly manageable on a 4200 foot strip (as in you can land fast with lesser flaps and some power on, given 4200 feet, for rudder authority). and (2) One SHOULD use superior judgement (as in select a different runway) so as to only have to use average skill....which was not apparently present at this event.

Good bet that NTSB says, "failure to maintain direction control". The glass screen in the G3 does NOT assist you with either stick and rudder, or judgement issues.
 
Last edited:
agreed, the judgment is flawed, another sigh.
 
It does seem to be Cirri. Right now at the FBO here in IPT there's an SR22 in on a prop strike. Guy came in for a night landing. Prop hit first, followed by nosewheel and the mains. The prop got all bent up, and now it's in for a very expensive repair.

Then again, though, on Saturday we dropped off a guy at ERI to pick up his Piper Dakota, and he'd just had it repaired after a prop strike as well. Although I also have a friend who watched an SR22 owner die when he completely botched up a landing, made the wrong decision afterwards, and then put the plane into a tree and caught fire. This was a few years back.

I don't know anything about how an SR22 actually flies having never gotten closer to one than standing next to one with a bent up prop at the FBO, but one wonders if it's an inherent issue to the plane or an inherent issue to the type of person who buys the plane. My mom always used to complain about Hondas, citing that whenever someone did something that annoyed her on the road, that person was usually driving a Honda. Obviously the car itself is not responsible for the driver, but it seemed there was a correlation with regards to the kind of people who bought these cars.
 
I boil much of it down to complacency, overconfidence and lack of proficiency.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It does seem to be Cirri. Right now at the FBO here in IPT there's an SR22 in on a prop strike. Guy came in for a night landing. Prop hit first, followed by nosewheel and the mains. The prop got all bent up, and now it's in for a very expensive repair.
Click to expand...
The landing attitude of an SR22 has a sweet spot that is relatively narrow compared to other airplanes. Nose too flat and you hit the nosewheel, nose too high and you strike the tail. Prop strikes in Cirri are pretty common.
 
I must admit that I could use a bit of additional training in landing in 20kt crosswinds, then again the demonstrated max is 15 knts in the ol' 182 so I might have tried for elsewhere.
 
During the one demo flight I took in a -22 the factory rep was quick to tell me not to over rotate as we lifted off. He was a little nervous when I made a mildly steep approach on final, too. I think his comment was "watch the vasi" and my response was "i'm watching the trees". I rolled it on then the engine died as a turned off the rwy. Something about having to have the boost pump on during landing...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I don't know anything about how an SR22 actually flies
Click to expand...
I've flown both the 20 and the 22. Ken's right about the narrow attitude window on takeoff and landing, but it isn't that hard -- I greased my first landing in a Cirrus. I suspect it's a bit trickier for folks trained to low standards in Cessnas (which are a lot more forgiving of sloppiness, as are, unfortunately, many instructors these days), but any competent Grumman pilot will have no stick-and-rudder problems in a Cirrus.

one wonders if it's an inherent issue to the plane or an inherent issue to the type of person who buys the plane.
Click to expand...
If you read all the SR20/22 accident reports in the NTSB database, I think you'll conclude it's the latter. That said, I think one possible exacerbating factor is that the official Cirrus training program emphasizes maximum use of the autopilot. I wonder if the resulting limited hands-on-stick-and-throttles time Cirrus pilots get that way reduces their feel for the plane, and makes them less sensitive to the controls during landing.:dunno:
 
I have no problem with the go around, particularly if it was actually a low pass to see Xwind effects on the aircraft while near the RWY.

An average private pilot is only marginally capable of safe, crosswind landings in moderately gusty conditions. Any Xwinds with gusts getting into even the lower 20s, especially with the reduced control rate responses of a near full gross aircraft, are very likely to claim all sorts of small and large damages...
 
It is interesting how many pilots are reluctant to use a short grass cross runway when there is a serious crosswind issue on the one long paved runway. I was flying into Ann Arboar about a year ago with the wind about 320 at 20-25 knots. There was a pilot in a Warrior in the pattern for 24 (about 3500 feet paved) who went around a couple of times trying to land. I asked for 30, the shorter grass strip. Tower sounded surprised, but OK'd it, and my landing was easy (and, with that headwind, short). The other pilot finally made it onto 24 while I was taxiing in, although his landing was, let's say, interesting. The fact that he full-stopped after his first successful landing suggests he wasn't out there practicing crosswind landings -- so why didn't he follow me onto 30? Dunno...
 
But what is "short" Cap'n Ron? Also, many pilots have never landed on grass so have no idea what it is like.
 
tdager said:
But what is "short" Cap'n Ron?
Click to expand...
Depends on what you're flying. How about anything less than twice the book 50-foot obstacle distance? That would be anything under 2900 feet in my Tiger (SL/std day), which by my experience, is short enough that I'm significantly concerned about it.
Also, many pilots have never landed on grass so have no idea what it is like.
Click to expand...
Ah, well, that's a potential issue, isn't it? See the poll I just started on that over in Pilot Training.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
For me, anything under 1000 feet. For some others, anything shorter than 5000'.
Click to expand...

This is where I'm glad that home is 3270 feet, with the free catapult from the bump in the runway at 1000 feet (since gone). :D

When that's normal you get lost on a 5000 foot runway.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I don't know anything about how an SR22 actually flies having never gotten closer to one than standing next to one with a bent up prop at the FBO, but one wonders if it's an inherent issue to the plane or an inherent issue to the type of person who buys the plane.
Click to expand...

Well, as Kevin Garrison notes in this month's CEO of the Cockpit:

We were halfway through the salad course before Chad noticed what we should have seen as obvious: Except for the salesperson giving the spiel, we were the only pilots there. This particular aircraft company had come to a marketing conclusion that every general aviation manufacturer should have arrived at years ago: The industry should not be selling to pilots, they should be selling to non-pilots!​


Sad about the outcome, though. Any new word on the survivors' condition?

-Rich
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It does seem to be Cirri. Right now at the FBO here in IPT there's an SR22 in on a prop strike. Guy came in for a night landing. Prop hit first, followed by nosewheel and the mains. The prop got all bent up, and now it's in for a very expensive repair.

Then again, though, ...
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
I've flown both the 20 and the 22. Ken's right about the narrow attitude window on takeoff and landing, but it isn't that hard -- I greased my first landing in a Cirrus. I suspect it's a bit trickier for folks trained to low standards in Cessnas (which are a lot more forgiving of sloppiness, as are, unfortunately, many instructors these days), but any competent Grumman pilot will have no stick-and-rudder problems in a Cirrus.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, we have a Grumman Tiger at the field right now that has a prop strike where the pilot couldn't even keep it on the runway, but wound up on the median between the runway and the taxiway.


I'm not sayin'..., I'm just sayin'... :dunno::eek:
 
rpadula said:
Well, as Kevin Garrison notes in this month's CEO of the Cockpit:

We were halfway through the salad course before Chad noticed what we should have seen as obvious: Except for the salesperson giving the spiel, we were the only pilots there. This particular aircraft company had come to a marketing conclusion that every general aviation manufacturer should have arrived at years ago: The industry should not be selling to pilots, they should be selling to non-pilots!​


Sad about the outcome, though. Any new word on the survivors' condition?

-Rich
Click to expand...

Of course. I discussed that with the CEO hisself.

Do you know that Piper sold the Piper Cub to non-pilots the same way? I have the ad on my wall.

Take 600,000 licensed pilots, subtract those not active, subtract those that can't afford a new plane, etc. Now build a manufacturer where the entire market, for you and your competition and the used product market, is maybe 50,000 humans on the planet. Watch the investors flock to you. :no:

They have to sell it as a transportation solution for those who can afford it. We should be happy that a) they built a successful new airplane company out of nothing, and b) THEY'RE BRINGING IN NEW PILOTS.... while the WW II vets are passing every day and otherwise it gets tougher every year to get started.

They have the Cirrus Access program as a way to properly prepare the new pilots. Other than refusing customers what else should Cirrus do?
 
Last edited:
tonycondon said:
there were no survivors
Click to expand...
Oh, double :(:( I thought I had read in the initial report that two had survived.

Do you know that Piper sold the Piper Cub to non-pilots the same way? I have the ad on my wall.

They have to sell it as a transportation solution for those who can afford it. We should be happy that a) they built a successful new airplane company out of nothing, and b) THEY'RE BRINGING IN NEW PILOTS.... while the WW II vets are passing every day and otherwise it gets tougher every year to get started.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, Mike. I don't think it's an inherently bad approach. New pilots have to come from somewhere. However, new owners is a different matter. Selling fast airframes to middle-aged n00bs with too much money may be the wrong starting point. I heard on the radio recently that the fastest rising motorcycle death rate category is guys in their mid-40's -- presumably scratching the mid-life crisis itch on Harleys.

Other than refusing customers what else should Cirrus do?
Click to expand...

I think starting them earlier (when their type-A personalities haven't quite intersected with so much money, say in their 20's) in the much slower Cirrus LSA would be better. Just like we did in our 152's. Work your way up.


-Rich
 
Everybody is a non-pilot, until they start training. I don't see what's wrong with the marketing - it's bringing pilots (and aircraft buyers) into the community. Everyone says we need more pilots. They (Cirrus) are doing something about it.

I can't help but think the problem lies in the instruction. Flying is not inherently difficult, if you are prepared. A lot of these people just aren't prepared. I don't know about this guy (I'll pull my punches), but it's hard to see how those wx conditions resulted in a smoking crater.

Nothing wrong with the Cirrus. Nice airplane.
 
rpadula said:
I think starting them earlier (when their type-A personalities haven't quite intersected with so much money, say in their 20's) in the much slower Cirrus LSA would be better. Just like we did in our 152's. Work your way up.
Click to expand...

So if a guy shows up at the Porsche dealer ready to write the $100,000 check or put it on his Black American Express card, the dealer should say, "Sorry. I can only let you buy the VW Cabrio."?

Actually, that's prolly not a bad idea. :D
 
mikea said:
So if a guy shows up at the Porsche dealer ready to write the $100,000 check or put it on his Black American Express card, the dealer should say, "Sorry. I can only let you buy the VW Cabrio."?

Actually, that's prolly not a bad idea. :D
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, because when he wraps it around a pole, it won't be covered in the news the way small airplane crashes are.

Unless said purchaser is Britney Spears.

-Rich
 
In the last five years, Cessna 172, there have been approximately 140 fatal crashes. Why don't we talk about all these? As soon as a Cirrus aircraft goes down--everyone jumps Cirrus. Obviously there are more 172s being flown. But still--airplanes crash--people die.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
In the last five years, Cessna 172, there have been approximately 140 fatal crashes. Why don't we talk about all these? As soon as a Cirrus aircraft goes down--everyone jumps Cirrus. Obviously there are more 172s being flown. But still--airplanes crash--people die.
Click to expand...
Jesse, look at the second paragraph in post #11. The Cirrus is a fine bird. It's Judgement that is the problem.

I've seen it here at my home field- the G1000 however does NOT help with judgement or stick and rudder competency.
 
bbchien said:
Jesse, look at the second paragraph in post #11. The Cirrus is a fine bird. It's Judgement that is the problem.

I've seen it here at my home field- the G1000 however does NOT help with judgement or stick and rudder competency.
Click to expand...

Most any accident judgment was the problem. It's the Cirrus ones that get everyone's attention. Probably because most of us can't afford to fly them :)

BTW--The Cirrus does not have a G1000 ;)
 
jesse said:
Most any accident judgment was the problem. It's the Cirrus ones that get everyone's attention. Probably because most of us can't afford to fly them :)

BTW--The Cirrus does not have a G1000 ;)
Click to expand...
5000. My bad. :eek:
 
jesse said:
Most any accident judgment was the problem. It's the Cirrus ones that get everyone's attention. Probably because most of us can't afford to fly them :)

BTW--The Cirrus does not have a G1000 ;)
Click to expand...
I think it's more in line with a false confidence with TAA. They think the glass panel gives them more (and more reliable) data and it's easy to stay out of trouble.

Likewise, I have issues with a manufacturer supposedly telling buyers to effectively depend most of their operation on AP. This presents another false confidence; particularly when a less than proficient instrument rated pilot attempts an approach in low IMC.

Both are tools but they are not intended to be a substitute for what the pilot should already be more than capable and proficient with the basic six pack.

By what I've seen and read, you have gone quite the distance in developing good stick and rudder skills. So many of these accidents end up revealing information that skill was just not there.
 
jesse said:
In the last five years, Cessna 172, there have been approximately 140 fatal crashes. Why don't we talk about all these?
Click to expand...
Because there were over 42,000 C-172's produced and less than 3000 SR's. If we had the same percentage of the 172 fleet involved in fatal crashes as Cirrus in those five years, there would have been over 350 fatal 172 crashes.:hairraise: Likewise, if the Cirri were experiencing fatals at the same rate as the 172, there would have been les than 10, not 25, fatal Cirrus accidents. Considering the way the Cirrus is equipped (state of the art avionics plus BRS), the Cirrus should have a lower rate, not one two and a half times greater. That suggests there is a serious problem in the Cirrus community. In my opinion, based on review of the accidents and having flown the plane, the only component which could be causing this is the nut that holds the control stick.

That said, the fact that this is only the second fatal SR accident in eleven months this year compared to 10 fatals last year suggests the Cirrus community is getting a handle on the problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top