Cirrus Accident

Does anyone have additional facts on the Cirrus crash last Monday? It appears there were no injuries (thank goodness), but the report is odd…hard to see how a simulated engine out would contribute to a crash. Perhaps this was just loss of control on landing?

B. Reg. No.: 6000C M/M: SR20 Desc: 2000 CIRRUS SR20
Activity: Training Phase: Take-off GA-A/C: General Aviation
Descr: AIRCRAFT DEPARTED RWY 36, SIMULATED ENGINE FAILURE 250 FT ABOVE
GROUND, ACFT SANK AND IMPACTED RWY, ROLLED OFF RWY INTO A FENCE,
ALEXANDER CITY, AL

It appears to have been 2 CFI’s. The first, a Wings Aloft instructor was giving instruction to the second who was working with a new owner of a used SR20.

Why they were practicing engine outs at very low altitude is beyond me. If the student makes a mistake, there is precious little time for the CFI to recover the airplane.

Seems to make more sense [ & safety] to drill it on the ground and practice in a sim or at altitude.

What I’ve heard is through the rumor mill, so it may be prone to errors. we’ll just have to wait for the NTSB to weigh in.

I have no information on the accident other than what is posted on the FAA site but I want to comment on your statement that you don’t see how a simulated engine failure can lead to an accident. In fact accidents following simulated power losses are not uncommon. To intentionally cut power on departure at 250 feet is, at best, nuts, and is an accident waiting to happen.
While I know that the final report is not out I want to assume the data given in the preliminary report is correct and I want to use that data to show that the accident was absolutely INEVITABLE as soon as the instructor decided to do the maneuver. This is important to understand so please bear with the analysis.
The data we have indicates that the departure was from RW 36 at Alexander City Alabama. That runway is 5417 feet long and 686 feet above sea level. I’m going to estimate the temperature at 20C and use performance data based on a pressure altitude of 1000 feet. I’m also going to assume an aircraft weight of between 2500 and 2900 lbs. I have done some rounding and averaging so my numbers may not be exact, but they are “exact enough” to make the point.
Here’s the scenario. You take off and climb to 250 feet. The instructor pulls back the power. There you are, low, slow and in a nose up attitude. Assuming you don’t stall your only option is to immediately lower the nose and land straight ahead. I’m sure that’s what the instructor was attempting to demonstrate. Now let’s look at the performance numbers from the SR20 POH to see if the maneuver can be successfully completed.
First to take off and clear 50 feet requires approximately 1873 feet. To climb to 250 feet requires another 200 feet of climb and given a climb gradient of 670 feet/NM it will take about another 1821 feet to get to 250 feet. Then you cut the power. To land a SR20 over a 50 foot obstacle and stop requires 2113 feet and remember you’re at 250 feet, NOT 50. So to land from that point over a just a 50 foot obstacle you’ve used up over 5800 feet from the starting point of your 5417 foot strip. Landing from 250 feet will need lots more. It’s no surprise that you’re going to run off the runway.
Had the instructor looked at the POH and run the numbers he would never have pulled the power at 250 feet (and again, I’m assuming he did. I admit that I don’t know that).
The point of all this is that pilots too often come to grief by asking the plane to do something that it is impossible for it to do. As Pogo famously said, “I have met the enemy and he is us”.
This is the sort of maneuver that is best practiced by levelling at a few thousand feet and making that level the “surface” . Then you slow to climb speed, initiate a climb and pull the power. You can use the GPS to see how much distance you will use up getting back to the “surface” and you can practice how to control the aircraft with a power loss in a low, slow, nose high attitude without breaking anything.
Jerry Seckler N1970

Why they were practicing engine outs at very low altitude is beyond me. If the student makes a mistake, there is precious little time for the CFI to recover the airplane.

When I was getting my PPL the instructor gave me an engine out about 50 or 100 feet off the ground after take off. All I had to do was land straight ahead (it was a long runway).

It’s more important how the insurance companies weigh in.

The injury part of the accident was to the non-Wings Aloft CFI who jumped from the SR20 while it was still rolling and was struck by the tail section.

The “anonymous” post above is really mine. I don’t believe in not taking responsibility for my thoughts.
Not sure how it got labeled anonymous but it did. Sorry.
Jerry Seckler

The brake failure is not the cause of the incident. However, the brakes did fail because of a hard landing. Since the brakes failed, the airplane rolled down 2000+ feet of runway, 300 feet threshold and 50 feet of grass; all uphill and into the wind. Tell me how much forward speed the airplane must have to roll that far, uphill into the wind. That’s how fast the airplane was traveling when it landed. It certainly wasn’t slow. The landing was hard but the airplane would not have rolled into a fence if the brakes hadn’t failed. Another thing; instruction is by no means the safest occupation. CFI’s deal with students of all skill levels and have a number of tasks to practice in a short amount of time. If engine failures aren’t practiced in a training enviornment, what is the result when it really happens… with freinds and family in the airplane.

If it was a simulated engine out, you’d think one of these “instructors” would have applied the most obvious remedy…full power!

If this was a Wings Aloft-caused accident, it sounds like they just bought themselves an SR-20.

During a recurrent check a few years ago, I had a CFI pull power at 200’. As the runway was on 4,000’, I put full throttle back in and resumed climb out. He actually tried to over-power my hand and told him to let go or I would kill him. I came back around and landed and told him to get out of the aircraft…right off the runway. Then I taxied back to my hanger. I was going to forget about it, but a few days later, I ran into him at the airport grill. He started arguing with me about “What I had done wrong”. I called the FAA after lunch. He lost his ticket for 1 full year.
Do not ever assume that all CFIÂ’s know everything.
BillW

‘truer words’ were never spoken!!! While I was taking my pre-check-ride with a different instuctor before the FAA, the ‘head CFI’ while I was under the hood ‘doing unusual’ attitudes put the plane and us in a serious condition. When he said ‘go ahead and re-cover’ the plane was near a 90 degree bank in a steep right turn descending past 2500 fpm! When I re-covered, he said 'boy we almost pulled a JFK!. He had himself only a 1.5 hour check-ride with the Cirrus prior to our ride and probably couldn’t have pulled us out of the manuever using the ‘stick’ if he tried.
When I had my ‘real check-ride’ with the FAA, this guy used a stick for years and actually showed me some good techniques I had not been shown before. His comment was that 99% of CFI’s teach with 152’s and 172’s. Therefore can never get you as efficient as otherwise.
I now have 150hours in the Cirrus, took my check-ride at 120 hours (by design) and have Wings Alofy coming to richmond next week for three days to learn more since these folks should be most familiar with the entire plane.

As an active CFI, I am still amazed at what happens when two instructors get together. Any time when I am going to do a simulated engine failure with a student right after take-off, I will let them know in advance what will happen and when. Below 500 ft is not the time to surprise somebody. Yes, it happens in real life, but to do it in a training environment will set you up for an incident/accident.

Without commenting one way or another on the judgement of the CFI, I rather doubt that any reasonably competent pilot, even with no time in the Cirrus, would have any trouble recovering from a 90 degree bank in VMC without a hood. The two critical items in the picture are altitude and airspeed; if you’ve got enough of the former and not too much of the latter, recovery is pretty straightforward (pull the power and level the wings and then start pulling.) At a 90 degree bank you will get a wicked descent rate, but the airspeed is going to take awhile to come up.

I’d interpret the “JFK” comment as a somewhat hamhanded way of letting you know what happens if you can’t recover from that attitude. But I wasn’t there; if the CFI seemed really rattled by the whole thing, then you probably don’t want to fly with that CFI.

One of the tough calls for any CFI is deciding how far to let you go to see if you’ll recover on your own, without killing you both. The further out you go, the more you learn. When I was working on my instrument rating, my Deeply Evil instructor (who I still work with) decided that I should go fly holds inside a relatively benign-looking California winter cumulus cloud (with 4000 feet of clear, warm air below.) The wing root seals on my 172 needed work, and so there were ice crystalsblowing through the cockpit and we were getting pretty hammered. At one point I got distracted while in the turn and then had the feeling that something was wrong–I heard the wind noise start to pick up and noticed that my bank was past 50 degrees and I was starting to lose altitude in a hurry. I did my unusual attitude recovery, swore at her, and she just cackled maniaclly as she usually does. Definitely got my heart beating, but I did do the right thing, a confidence point that gave me a boost.

The maneuver had been discussed repeatedly. Examples at altitude had been practiced. At 250, when power was pulled, the flying cfi did excatly the wrong thing. Instead of pushing the nose forward, he pulled the nose up and froze. The Wings CFI overpowered the controls and tried to apply full throttle but the hand of the frozen cfi blocked the throttle. Power came in but only to the detent which was really stiff in this airplane. Finally full power was applied before touchdown. The airplane landed hard, luckily without stalling, and both brakes failed. The airplane rolled all the way down the runway with zero control. Then it rolled off the runway down hill into a fence. Who’s to blame?

he wasn’t rattlled…petrifide!..as far as the JFK thing…he meant he almost put us there…i, however, was the one who re-covered…not him.
the whole point of my post was to concur CFI’s make stupid mistakes esp. in unfamiliar aircraft. By the way…airspeed as i re-call was in the ‘yellow’ zone at 180! felt a bunch of g’s coming out of it too.
don

Wow, I take it back then. Sounds like he was asleep at the wheel.

You both got more of a lesson than you bargained for, from the sound of it!

Power came in but only to the detent which was really stiff in this airplane. Finally full power was applied before touchdown. The airplane landed hard, luckily without stalling, and both brakes failed.

Although it sounds like the student may have panicked. If your description is correct, the accident might have been avoided if the throttle worked properly, and would have been avoided if the brakes had not failed. It sounds like Cirrus should be named a party to any legal action.

Although it sounds like the student may have panicked. If your description is correct, the accident might have been avoided if the throttle worked properly, and would have been avoided if the brakes had not failed. It sounds like Cirrus should be named a party to any legal action.

Yes - the brakes failed, to what other conclusion is there? Of course, after I’ve agreed with myself on this board, all readers will certanly be convinced that Cirrus was to blame. I think we should all pay serious attention to this post, and not to posts like the one from jseclker that prove analiticly that it was a dumb move to begin with.

Both brakes failed, and it just happened to take place when the plane had a hard landing. Total coincidence; just another example of Cirrus’s bad quality control manifesting itself at just the wrong time.

Give me a break (or is that brake)!!

Perhaps your posts would carry a bit more credibility if you stood behind your comments. To benefit everyone, please register and state your experience and qualifications.

Jerry has posted some very relevant analysis given the info posted on the forum AND stands behind his opinions. In the past, he has been extremely thoughtful and not spouted in a half-cocked fashion. If you have additional info or other more reliable sources, please let us know the specifics.

Marty