I just heard of a Cirrus going down in Wisconsin with a UND instructor. Although it is not confirmed, it was said it was controlled flight into terrain. The CFI was life flighted out but the pilot did not make it. Any details or word on it please reply. Thanks.
In reply to:
I just heard of a Cirrus going down in Wisconsin with a UND instructor. Although it is not confirmed, it was said it was controlled flight into terrain. The CFI was life flighted out but the pilot did not make it. Any details or word on it please reply. Thanks.
Yes. it seems [that the accident has] been confirmed in http://www.aero-news.net/LinkToArticle.cfm?ContentBlockID=b3ffffd2-4192-4a78-8d1a-141f254d3e6d>. A longer, more viable thread is continuing here in the Members Forum.
My heart and prayers go out to the surviving families and friends of the deceased pilot. I hope that we can keep speculation and recrimination to a minimum until the facts are in.
(Edit: Language in brackets added to clarify the meaning of the sentance.)
The aircraft was N1223S the first parachute aircraft. It is like a bad omen, seems this aircraft did not like to be flown. Our prayers are with all the families.
From Laurence:
In reply to:
Although it is not confirmed, it was said it was controlled flight into terrain.
From Marty:
In reply to:
Yes. it seems to have been confirmed in ANN.
Here is a good definition of Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT). It states that “Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT) occurs when an airworthy aircraft under the control of a pilot is inadvertently flown into terrain, water, or an obstacle with inadequate awareness on the part of the pilot of the impending disaster.” Though “Possible CFIT” is mentioned once in the COPA member forum, the official ANN story does not reference this. One of our fellow COPA members visited the scene and said that the airplane impacted a river just north of Runway 18 at Park Falls Municipal Airport (PKF).
In defense of the pilots–since CFIT almost invariably involves gross pilot error–I think we should keep that off the table until we know a lot more about the accident. For all we know at this point, there may very well have been an emergency aboard the aircraft before it was lost.
In reply to:
From Laurence:
Although it is not confirmed, it was said it was controlled flight into terrain.
From Marty:
Yes. it seems to have been confirmed in ANN.
From Andy:
Here is a good definition of Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT). It states that “Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT) occurs when an airworthy aircraft under the control of a pilot is inadvertently flown into terrain, water, or an obstacle with inadequate awareness on the part of the pilot of the impending disaster.” Though “Possible CFIT” is mentioned once in the COPA member forum, the official ANN story does not reference this. One of our fellow COPA members visited the scene and said that the airplane impacted a river just north of Runway 18 at Park Falls Municipal Airport (PKF).
In defense of the pilots–since CFIT almost invariably involves gross pilot error–I think we should keep that off the table until we know a lot more about the accident. For all we know at this point, there may very well have been an emergency aboard the aircraft before it was lost.
Andy, of course you are correct. I have edited my post to clarify my careless writing and include that the accident was what was confirmed, not the cause.
When we speculate about the causes of accidents so that we can think about ways to avoid similar fate, that is a very positive exercise. (Thinking about enhancing safety is always worthwhile.) But when we speculate to assign blame, to avoid blame, or to act invulnerable, there is no benefit, and people can get hurt. Echoing Andy’s thoughts, please let’s not get caught up in this negative speculation.
In reply to:
I have edited my post to clarify my careless writing and include that the accident was what was confirmed, not the cause.
Marty,
I wouldn’t characterize your writing as “careless” at all. I knew what you were getting at. It’s just too darn simple in the forum format to be thinking one thing while typing something that can be more easily misinterpreted. Thanks for clarifying, though.
More than once, I have posted something in the middle of the night (and the middle of the day for that matter), then looked at it the next day only to think That’s not quite what I meant to say or I can’t believe I said that. An example of the latter: I believe I am the only COPA member who has actually used the words “sugar and spice, and everything nice” in a post. Worst part is I can’t even say I was drunk. [:$] Oh, well.
Even in the original post, you clearly stated that you “…hope that we can keep speculation and recrimination to a minimum until the facts are in.” That’s great advice which I like to be reminded to follow because my curiosity tends to run wild when these kinds of things happen.
I’ve said it on the Member Forum side of this discussion already, but I just want to echo here what Marty said about “heart and prayers” for the family of the pilot who was killed and also his instructor who I believe is currently in the hospital.
Martin,
What you said below is excellent and should apply to all pilots and aircraft owners. Additionally, what you said should also apply to questions concerning potential problems with integral fuel tanks which may hold water that may be undetectable to the pilot during the preflight of the aircraft.
"When we speculate about the causes of accidents so that we can think about ways to avoid similar fate, that is a very positive exercise. (Thinking about enhancing safety is always worthwhile.) But when we speculate to assign blame, to avoid blame, or to act invulnerable, there is no benefit, and people can get hurt. Echoing Andy’s thoughts, please let’s not get caught up in this negative speculation. "