SR22T down outside Raleigh

szwinger said:
I read the preliminary report. What facts are known? I'm not trying to be confrontational. I have my own set of guesses. Loosing ADSB is a pretty good indication that you lost the Avionics relay due to low bus voltage. Losing Nav/Com and PFD means you lost the essential bus and are flying a plane without electrics. The Remote Data Module (RDM) which was recovered should provide some facts and a timeline.
Click to expand...
We know he lost ADSB early in the flight. According to you, that indicates something other than an ALT1 failure.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I wonder if the loss of avionics due to electrical failure affected that outcome. IE inable to lean to planned fuel burn due to lack of fuel monitor.
Click to expand...
I had that thought a few days after the incident. Scared of leaning too much for that turbo and leaving overly rich.

Just put the thing on the damn ground.
 
Lindberg said:
We know he lost ADSB early in the flight. According to you, that indicates something other than an ALT1 failure.
Click to expand...
If I'm interpreting this diagram correctly it means that he lost the Avionics bus. That's either the Avionics relay or the Avionics switch. The avionics relay is powered by ALT2 unless he switched it off manually that would imply Main Bus 2 was depleted. This would most likely occur after losing ALT1 but it would not be immediate. The essential bus (COM/NAV) is powered by BAT2. He would lose COM after BAT2 drained which would likely be after ALT2 failed or was switched off (unlikely). Alt1 would already be failed else it would power the Avionics bus.

All of that is conjecture on my part. That is what I think. The RDM will confirm or reject. NOTE: there's a whole other discussion about the isolation diodes which may or may not be relevant.
 

Attachments

  • CBs.png
    CBs.png
    292.7 KB · Views: 10
szwinger said:
I'm not trying to argue, but that's not what the Cirrus approved document say.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a source for that? I find that pretty hard to believe
 
szwinger said:
In the G3 the backup instruments are steam gauges. Still agree with your post. I’d probably rely on an EFB and the Airspeed indicator at that point, he was up to all the challenges that the aircraft threw at him until the engine quit. Maybe a false sense that he had it made being so close to the airport
Click to expand...
But the engine quit was most likely fuel starvation. Was he that close when he departed. Or did he absolutely butcher leaning procedures trying to be kind to the turbo.

This flight is way beyond my risk profile.
 
Racerx said:
Can you provide a source for that? I find that pretty hard to believe
Click to expand...
The AFM/POH is in the plane at the moment. I'll dig them out if this isn't official enough. I think it's the same in the POH but that is from memory. I could be wrong.
 

Attachments

  • ChecklistCover.jpeg
    ChecklistCover.jpeg
    480.4 KB · Views: 12
  • AltFail.JPG
    AltFail.JPG
    541.7 KB · Views: 12
Ed Haywood said:
I wonder if the loss of avionics due to electrical failure affected that outcome. IE inable to lean to planned fuel burn due to lack of fuel monitor.
Click to expand...

Possible. I *think* the SR22T holds 92 gallons, but burn rate in climb is bozospheric and I’ve seen anywhere from 12-18gph depending on altitude. Lots of room for error there, but call it a 4 to 5.5hr endurance that should still leave room for IFR reserves to be met.
 
Racerx said:
But the engine quit was most likely fuel starvation. Was he that close when he departed. Or did he absolutely butcher leaning procedures trying to be kind to the turbo.

This flight is way beyond my risk profile.
Click to expand...
I have my suspicion based on the Preliminary report. 3 gal left, but they specifically mentioned the tank was breached. What I hope is that he lost 10 gallons or so from the tank breach. That is not noted in the preliminary report so I have my suspicions that my hopes will be dashed. They will know fuel qty and fuel flow up until the time they lost all power. They should be able to extrapolate from that data.
 
TCABM said:
Possible. I *think* the SR22T holds 92 gallons, but burn rate in climb is bozospheric and I’ve seen anywhere from 12-18gph depending on altitude. Lots of room for error there, but call it a 4 to 5.5hr endurance that should still leave room for IFR reserves to be met.
Click to expand...
I flew both my TN and NA SR22s at 65% power LOP at 13-ish GPH. NA is around 28 Gal/hr climb. TN was around 30+. The TSIO is more in climb (maybe close to 40GPH). Almost everyone flies a SR22 faster than me. I plan 15 GPH block to block and beat that pretty easily. I think I've read 15ish LOP and 18ish ROP for the TSIO turbo. 92 gal for the G3 and later tanks. I believe when they switched to the carbon fiber wing spar the tanks went to 92Gal.

EDIT: 46 gal tanks in each wing. 92 Total useable.
 
Lindberg said:
Does the POH say to continue flying if that happens? I'm guessing no. But he did.
Click to expand...
I dug the POH out of the plane. ALT 1 and Alt 2 failures are the same as posted above. Continue and avoid night or IMC if possible. It's in Abnormal procedures.

There are other checklists in the emergency procedure. The one most applicable to this situation is ESS BUSS. It says land as soon as practical. I'm unsure based on the prelim report when that error message would have been presented. Generally that will be after you deplete BAT1 and then BAT2. That would be load dependent. There was clearly a point in this flight where guidance was land as soon as practical. Some checklists state land as soon as possible. Again, I am not trying to argue he did the right thing. The outcome proves mistakes were made. The RDM (Remote Data Module) will provide data to determine how egregious the error(s). It seems he had a "get out of crash free" handle within reach. That is a mystery.
 

Attachments

  • ESSBus.JPG
    ESSBus.JPG
    495.7 KB · Views: 11
TCABM said:
Possible. I *think* the SR22T holds 92 gallons, but burn rate in climb is bozospheric and I’ve seen anywhere from 12-18gph depending on altitude. Lots of room for error there, but call it a 4 to 5.5hr endurance that should still leave room for IFR reserves to be met.
Click to expand...

Can hold 92 gallons, doesn't mean he filled it. Given his other decisions in this flight and accident sequence, I would question his fuel planning as well. Gas might have been cheaper at home.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Can hold 92 gallons, doesn't mean he filled it....
Click to expand...
Or checked the totalizer, or verified the information.

There’s a lot of assumptions that can be inferred from the information available, but very little that can be confirmed. The platform offers a lot in the way of safety, information, and comfort for the operator and pax.

My gut wants me to believe the mishap is the result of a bunch of bad habits built over time, but it’s also just as likely there were things that occurred on the ground before he picked the plane up that resulted in the outcome.
 
You have to consider adventure with diverts, then put your resourcefulness to work. There may be mini-challenges, but your friend’s & relatives would much prefer it.
 
TCABM said:
My gut wants me to believe the mishap is the result of a bunch of bad habits built over time, but it’s also just as likely there were things that occurred on the ground before he picked the plane up that resulted in the outcome.
Click to expand...
If one thing at all is obvious from this accident, it is that there were links in the chain that could have been easily broken by the PIC. This is probably going to come down to an escalating abnormality that was managed with continuously poor ADM. Choosing to press on with his wife and his two children on board was totally inexcusable.
 
Racerx said:
I am very risk averse when it comes to airplanes.
Click to expand...

I am the opposite. Aerobatics, formation, STOL, long VFR XC ... I'm game for most anything.

But with my family it is a totally different story. It scares the **** out of me.

That poor guy and his wife probably thought that fancy airplane with all the modern systems made them safer. That is the main selling point of Cirrus. And it wound up killing him.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I am the opposite. Aerobatics, formation, STOL, long VFR XC ... I'm game for most anything.

But with my family it is a totally different story. It scares the **** out of me.

That poor guy and his wife probably thought that fancy airplane with all the modern systems made them safer. That is the main selling point of Cirrus. And it wound up killing him.
Click to expand...
If what we know so far fits with the reality, no it didn't.
 
Ed Haywood said:
That poor guy and his wife probably thought that fancy airplane with all the modern systems made them safer. That is the main selling point of Cirrus. And it wound up killing him.
Click to expand...
Decisions made and the resulting consequences is why lives were lost. It’s not the fault of the airplane.
 
Ed Haywood said:
That poor guy and his wife probably thought that fancy airplane with all the modern systems made them safer. That is the main selling point of Cirrus. And it wound up killing him.
Click to expand...

GLMS_NC said:
Decisions made and the resulting consequences is why lives were lost. It’s not the fault of the airplane.
Click to expand...
A factor here could be complacency fostered by a comprehensive avionics and equipment suite. It wouldn't be the first time, and it isn't an argument against having a panel full of glass, or a chute, or electrically-dependent components of the ignition system. Poor ADM is poor ADM, regardless of how a plane may be equipped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top