SR22T down outside Raleigh

I’ve flown a cirrus when all it would do was start. NOTHING else. Used a handheld to call tower. Wasn’t a big deal.

All that means is that it far from impossible. In a startle response mode, who knows?
 
Anyone a member over at COPA? What are they saying? Those guys know the systems and airplane better than anyone.

Did he have a mechanical or electrical rocket launcher? The rocket has to have its own power so bus voltage problems won't effect it. A wiring harness disconnected or the voltage too low to launch the rocket would be no bueno unless there is a mechanical override.
 
Tools said:
I’ve flown a cirrus when all it would do was start. NOTHING else. Used a handheld to call tower. Wasn’t a big deal.

All that means is that it far from impossible. In a startle response mode, who knows?
Click to expand...

So you are saying you took off in a malfunctioning Cirrus? Remember, takeoffs are optional.
 
GLMS_NC said:
Anyone a member over at COPA? What are they saying? Those guys know the systems and airplane better than anyone.

Did he have a mechanical or electrical rocket launcher? The rocket has to have its own power so bus voltage problems won't effect it. A wiring harness disconnected or the voltage too low to launch the rocket would be no bueno unless there is a mechanical override.
Click to expand...
No longer a COPA member. My understanding is the entire fleet is now electrically fired solid fuel rockets. Earlier models were mechanically fired but at some point all the repacks were converted to electronic. Conversion from mechanical to electronic was not a cheap endeavor. The chute has a dedicated battery completely separate from either of the two busses. During annual the electrical connection to the chute is separated and voltage on each pin verified. I don’t know for sure, but I think if the connector was left disconnected there is no way for the pilot to know. It is not a preflight check.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Is cabin ventilation in any way connected to the electrical system?
Click to expand...
The AirConditioning is definitely on the Main Bus (ALT1, Bat1). I believe the entire system including ventilation is on the main bus.
 
szwinger said:
The AirConditioning is definitely on the Main Bus (ALT1, Bat1). I believe the entire system including ventilation is on the main bus.
Click to expand...

So could loss of main bus cause potential for CO buildup in cabin?
 
Ed Haywood said:
So could loss of main bus cause potential for CO buildup in cabin?
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. I think the cabin heat comes off a shroud over the exhaust system but I would guess the cabin ventilation system would make that worse. I initially assumed that everyone was incapable (incapacitated) of pulling the chute. It seems now that everyone was conscious for the entire horrible conclusion to this flight.
 
szwinger said:
I don’t know for sure, but I think if the connector was left disconnected there is no way for the pilot to know. It is not a preflight check.
Click to expand...
Holy crapola. No way to know. Ouch. I sure hope the wiring harness wasn’t disconnected. He had all the other issues to battle and now chute won’t deploy when he needs it most. Investigation will look for this and confirm.

Why not just land, rent a car and make it a road trip home, and deal with this later? I just don’t get it. Wife, 2 kids, business….why fly?
 
GLMS_NC said:
Holy crapola. No way to know. Ouch. I sure hope the wiring harness wasn’t disconnected. He had all the other issues to battle and now chute won’t deploy when he needs it most. Investigation will look for this and confirm.

Why not just land, rent a car and make it a road trip home, and deal with this later? I just don’t get it. Wife, 2 kids, business….why fly?
Click to expand...
Because he didn't know he was gonna die.

TBH if I were at 11K with 200 miles to go in day VFR and had alternator failure symptoms, I would probably have pressed on also. I have done it before.

But the planes I fly are old school, with analog gauges, mechanical trim, magnetos, and a scoop for fresh air. Loss of electrical power in day VFR is barely a blip.

Having an aircraft with so many technically complex systems dependent on electrical power changes the risk calculus.
 
Last edited:
GLMS_NC said:
Holy crapola. No way to know. Ouch. I sure hope the wiring harness wasn’t disconnected. He had all the other issues to battle and now chute won’t deploy when he needs it most. Investigation will look for this and confirm.

Why not just land, rent a car and make it a road trip home, and deal with this later? I just don’t get it. Wife, 2 kids, business….why fly?
Click to expand...
I just want to make sure that it’s clear that is not what I’m suggesting. From the beginning I watched this thing unfold and used it as a “what if” for my own flying. Every single theory or explanation I had turned out to be wrong. I’ve tried to consider the implausible and the almost impossible. This included me trying to find any explaination for the lack of the chute deploying. At first I assumed there was no on available to pull the handle. I’m not an A&P. I do not know what would happen if that connector wasn’t reconnected.
 
szwinger said:
I’m not an A&P. I do not know what would happen if that connector wasn’t reconnected.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it's difficult to figure out that if the connector wasn't connected then the chute isn't gonna work ...
 
Daleandee said:
I don't believe it's difficult to figure out that if the connector wasn't connected then the chute isn't gonna work ...
Click to expand...
I agree with that. What I’m not 100% sure of (but I have my guesses) is whether or not that condition is observable in any way to the pilot without disassembling some panels in the baggage compartment. I don’t think the G1000 knows.

The electronic ignition required the MCU to be changed. I’m not sure what that entails or if there is any monitoring or logging of the chute activation circuitry.

This video doesn’t answer any questions but it does show the CAPS connector and the test that occurs during the annual.

 
Last edited:
I am a new pilot. Private completed April 24. SR22 purchase September/24. I have 216 hrs total, 120 in my Cirrus. I am constantly flipping to the engine page during flight to check pressures and voltage. At the first sign of an issue (which I have not experienced) I am looking for a place to land. Especially with my family. Why would anyone push the limits like this? If he is able to afford this plane he was obviously educated and successful. You don’t get there by making bad decisions. I agree with someone’s post earlier. There is something we don’t know. There is a piece of the puzzle that is missing. So many facts about this tragedy lead to more questions. I want to see the data from the avionics.
 
TRC1969 said:
I am a new pilot. Private completed April 24. SR22 purchase September/24. I have 216 hrs total, 120 in my Cirrus. I am constantly flipping to the engine page during flight to check pressures and voltage. At the first sign of an issue (which I have not experienced) I am looking for a place to land. Especially with my family. Why would anyone push the limits like this? If he is able to afford this plane he was obviously educated and successful. You don’t get there by making bad decisions. I agree with someone’s post earlier. There is something we don’t know. There is a piece of the puzzle that is missing. So many facts about this tragedy lead to more questions. I want to see the data from the avionics.
Click to expand...
IF this was an ADM issue…

Success breeds complacency. Complacency breeds failure. Only the paranoid survive.

From the sounds of it, guy had lots of successful flights under his belt - and as the Doc pointed out, I’d be lying if I said I was not quite a bit more risk tolerant (or outcome ignorant) at 35.
 
This is from one of the comments in that video forum...

I'm a car mechanic (for over 40 years) and have been playing with designing an airplane. One of the things I hadn't seen before was the alternators being directly driven off internal components of the engine (I loved the idea so it got my attention). I HAVE seen alternators lose bearings and basically blow off belts, and take out engine parts that way. My first thought was if the main alternator had an internal bearing failure, the designers would likely have designed the input shaft of the alternator have some sort of breakaway, or sheer pin to stop the alternator pinion stopping, and causing all sorts of trouble for the engine. That being said, however, if that pin broke and the engine were to keep flying for a long period of time the alternator could have stopped, and the gear/shaft assembly could have effectively re-welded itself back together. THAT could have caused debris entering the engine's oiling system, or caused a catastrophic failure of the engine's internal gear to shrapnel on the inside.To me, I could see that as causing electrical problems (specifically the alternator would work and not for a bit in this type of failure ) and then later if the engine continues to be run, the cumulative effects of debris would ultimately kill any engine. (I also live in Pittsboro, near the area)

Anyone have any thoughts on this?
 
francisco collazos said:
This is from one of the comments in that video forum...

I'm a car mechanic (for over 40 years) and have been playing with designing an airplane. One of the things I hadn't seen before was the alternators being directly driven off internal components of the engine (I loved the idea so it got my attention). I HAVE seen alternators lose bearings and basically blow off belts, and take out engine parts that way. My first thought was if the main alternator had an internal bearing failure, the designers would likely have designed the input shaft of the alternator have some sort of breakaway, or sheer pin to stop the alternator pinion stopping, and causing all sorts of trouble for the engine. That being said, however, if that pin broke and the engine were to keep flying for a long period of time the alternator could have stopped, and the gear/shaft assembly could have effectively re-welded itself back together. THAT could have caused debris entering the engine's oiling system, or caused a catastrophic failure of the engine's internal gear to shrapnel on the inside.To me, I could see that as causing electrical problems (specifically the alternator would work and not for a bit in this type of failure ) and then later if the engine continues to be run, the cumulative effects of debris would ultimately kill any engine. (I also live in Pittsboro, near the area)

Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
Occam has many other options before this one.
 
There are many data bits here, but I am convinced that one of them is completely false.

Altitude remaining unchanged for even part of an hour is unlikely.

Remaining unchanged for the entire flight? Impossible, especially when there are multiple known failures in the systems, and the pilot is responding to them.

The altitude transmitted may have no important connection to the main failure, but it is misleading the analysis of the flight. I am of the OPINION that he did descend at a reasonable cruise rate toward his destination airport, and the disaster occurred at a few thousand feet.

I think that he felt that he had the plane generally under control until the last straw broke. What that last straw was, we hopefully will learn.

I am in agreement with many other posters, alternator failure should be a land now condition. I hade one, and as soon as I was aware of it, turned back to an airport that I had passed 15 minutes earlier. Replacement ordered Fedex Blue, installed next m morning, and departed a day late for our destination.

A day late beats never.


edited to add, the plane that I was flying had a traditional 6 pack, and the only instrument lost would be the turn and bank and fuel quantity. I did my first flights in aircraft with no electrics at all, beyond magneto's. I did my PPL with just a flip flop navcom added to the 6 pack. Continuing onward would have been easy that day, and relatively safe with my technology and experience. I had a traditional paper chart on my lap, heavy black line to the destination, and it was daylight. Still, my decision to turn to an airport that I KNEW was 15 minutes away, and exactly 180 degrees from present heading was the obvious choice.

Those were the days when if you landed with a problem, you were moved to the front of the line for trouble shooting, and when the parts came in, they were immediately installed and tested.
 
Last edited:
Just as a point of interest, my FAA approved AFM says the following in the emergency section:

"Alternator failure: land as soon as practicable if pilot determines electrical power is necessary for continued safe flight."

Again, much different plane.

So what does the Cirri AFM say? What does their training program teach?
 
Ed Haywood said:
Just as a point of interest, my FAA approved AFM says the following in the emergency section:

"Alternator failure: land as soon as practicable if pilot determines electrical power is necessary for continued safe flight."

Again, much different plane.

So what does the Cirri AFM say? What does their training program teach?
Click to expand...

My concern in an alternator failure is not just the loss of electrical power and the equipment that needs it, but why did the alternator fail? What is going on under the cowling that caused it? Is there anything else that is failing? Is the alternator failure the problem or the symptom of something bigger? Is something else damaged or going to fail? None of that can be determined from the cockpit. I would treat an alternator failure as a land as soon as practicable situation regardless of the need for electricity. Continuing a flight for hours, not me.
 
midwestpa24 said:
My concern in an alternator failure is not just the loss of electrical power and the equipment that needs it, but why did the alternator fail? What is going on under the cowling that caused it? Is there anything else that is failing? Is the alternator failure the problem or the symptom of something bigger? Is something else damaged or going to fail? None of that can be determined from the cockpit. I would treat an alternator failure as a land as soon as practicable situation regardless of the need for electricity. Continuing a flight for hours, not me.
Click to expand...

Depends on the plane again, but alternator failure is not a rare thing. Usually it's the brushes. Sometimes it's a slipping or broken belt, internal winding fault, regulator, loose terminal, broken field circuit, etc.

I'm not arguing against stopping. Certainly better safe than sorry. Just observing it's not a death wish or the actions of a crazy person.

More pointedly, loss of electrical power in a typical GA plane should not result in a fatal crash in those conditions. IF that is what happened here, some hard thinking needs to be done about the design philosophy of making everything electrical.

Maybe that electric trim should come with a manual override. Maybe that cabin should come with a manual vent or two.
 
This is from an online search and may not be exact, but it should be generally corrrect (I don’t have my POH handy).

Here’s the typical ALT1 failure checklist from the SR22T G3 POH (paraphrased from standard Cirrus Perspective procedures, as exact wording varies by serial number):
  1. ALT 1 Master Switch: Turn OFF.
  2. Alternator 1 Circuit Breaker: Check and reset if tripped.
  3. ALT 1 Master Switch: Turn ON.
  4. If ALT1 does not reset:
    • ALT 1 Master Switch: Turn OFF.
    • Reduce Electrical Load: Turn off non-essential systems (e.g., air conditioning, landing light, cabin fan) to preserve Battery 1.
    • Notify ATC: Declare the issue and request priority to land at the nearest suitable airport.
    • Land as Soon as Practicable: Plan to land to avoid Battery 1 depletion (typically 30–45 minutes under load).
 
szwinger said:
This is from an online search and may not be exact, but it should be generally corrrect (I don’t have my POH handy).

Here’s the typical ALT1 failure checklist from the SR22T G3 POH (paraphrased from standard Cirrus Perspective procedures, as exact wording varies by serial number):
  1. ALT 1 Master Switch: Turn OFF.
  2. Alternator 1 Circuit Breaker: Check and reset if tripped.
  3. ALT 1 Master Switch: Turn ON.
  4. If ALT1 does not reset:
    • ALT 1 Master Switch: Turn OFF.
    • Reduce Electrical Load: Turn off non-essential systems (e.g., air conditioning, landing light, cabin fan) to preserve Battery 1.
    • Notify ATC: Declare the issue and request priority to land at the nearest suitable airport.
    • Land as Soon as Practicable: Plan to land to avoid Battery 1 depletion (typically 30–45 minutes under load).
Click to expand...

Thanks. Perhaps a case could be made to change "practicable" to "possible".

The cabin fan intrigues me. If there is not a manual ventilation method, loss of electrical power could cause CO buildup.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Just as a point of interest, my FAA approved AFM says the following in the emergency section:

"Alternator failure: land as soon as practicable if pilot determines electrical power is necessary for continued safe flight."

Again, much different plane.

So what does the Cirri AFM say? What does their training program teach?
Click to expand...
Couple of differences since it's a 2-alternator system, but other than that, pretty much the same, although a bit more strict. The KOEL requires both alternators to be operative for IFR flight. In case of the failure of one, it's the relatively standard attempt to reset the failed alternator by switching on and off. If it doesn't reset, even though there's another, the manual says to reduce the load on the failed altimeter and land as soon as practicable.
 
Do those things have magnetos, or electronic ignition?

Is boost pump normally needed for at least take off and landing?
 
Has anyone mentioned it doesn’t appear there was much of a fire after the crash. Fuel exhaustion and engine failure on top of electrical failure earlier in the flight?
I assumed a composite airplane would tend to burn pretty easily once a fire started.
 
Mikey52 said:
Do those things have magnetos, or electronic ignition?

Is boost pump normally needed for at least take off and landing?
Click to expand...
SRxx Cirrus normally come stock with two classical magnetos.
Not sure if the boost pump (there are two settings, Boost and Max Boost) are required for takeoff but Boost is certainly recommended and in the Checklist.
 
Mikey52 said:
Is boost pump normally needed for at least take off and landing?
Click to expand...
In the Limitations section: "The fuel pump must be set to BOOST for takeoff, climb, and landing."

The checklist has boost on as part of the pre-takeoff checklist and left on; the takeoff checklist has a note that he boost pump should be on for takeoff and throughout the climb because of concerns over vapor lock. There are also checklist recommendations for having the boost pump on during cruise in certain conditions. I don't know if it's still true but when I was first introduced to Cirrus, there was a general SOP to just leave it on throughout the flight.
 
Last edited:
TRC1969 said:
If he is able to afford this plane he was obviously educated and successful. You don’t get there by making bad decisions.
Click to expand...
Just to touch on this point, some of the most successful people in the world got there by taking what many of us would consider huge risks. But you know what they say, high risk high reward. Right up until it isn't.
 
Auburn2002 said:
Just to touch on this point, some of the most successful people in the world got there by taking what many of us would consider huge risks. But you know what they say, high risk high reward. Right up until it isn't.
Click to expand...
Not to diminish anybody in particular (lots of people are successful due to hard work and/or risk-taking) but there are a lot of people who just fall into success as well. Right place/right time (including the birth lottery). And to the person to whom you responded, I wouldn’t correlate education or intelligence with owning any particular type of aircraft. Heck, owning an aircraft could be put into a “bad decision” bucket for a lot of people, despite their ability to go into debt in order to do so.
 
Hopefully the NTSB can recover some avionics data logging and shed some light on what happened. All we know at this point is some very poor decision making took place. I'm not sure what kind of backup avionics this generation Cirrus has but if he flew until the entire electrical system was depleted, he was most likely flying without any instruments, no flaps, and no trim. Given the speed range of a Cirrus I image the flight control forces on a plane at landing speed that was last trim for cruise at 11.5 would be significant. With no trim and no flaps and no airspeed indicator it would be very difficult to judge actual airspeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top