Is there a common link to these incidents? Each deployment so far has been related to “controlability” issues?
Any theories out there?
In reply to:
Is there a common link to these incidents? Each deployment so far has been related to “controlability” issues?
Laurence,
It seems like the accident in Canada might have been strongly influenced by environmental factors like turbulence and wind-shear. The Florida accident seems to be the result of something else, although it is too early to tell for sure, of course.
I have no idea where that terrain is or how high, but I’ll put $5 bucks down that the plane didn’t necessarily run into trouble with turbulence, per se. It seems like he was loaded down fairly well and those up and down drafts in mountain areas can really kill your ability to hold alt. I’ve experienced this to a minor degree in a 182 Durango, CO. I have been cruising along at normal speed and then get hit with a downdraft that in association with the ptich up necessary to hold alt drops the airspeed to 70-80 knots. That’s just with me in the plane. I imagine the effects would have been worse with full seats and only 200hp. My grain of salt.
The real common link is that ALL SOULS ON BOARD LIVED TO FLY ANOTHER DAY. There is NO common thread regarding the causes; 1-engine failure(Sun-Sential), 1-improper maint (re-assembly) by FBO and 1- possible decision to pull, because of a down draft, or severe turbulence.
Well, unless the aircraft was at Va or greater during the turbulence, I can understand. I’d like to know more.
Larry:
We alll want to know all that we can as fast as we can. But, as has been lerned a zillion times in the past, aircraft accidents rerquire a full investigation before any final conclusions can be drawn. Often what SEEMS like a cause turns out to be daed wrong.
So, we all have to be patient and wait for the investigation> In the meantime, take what you hear with a bit of a grain of salt.
It is a basic pilot technique that altitude hold should NOT be engaged on an autopilot in extreme turbulence. Whether that is a factor or not here remains to be seen.
In reply to:
I’d like to know more.
Laurence,
You and me both–and probably every other COPA member as well.[:)] I am hoping we can hear from the pilots of both those airplanes sometime in the near future.
In reply to:
In the meantime, take what you hear with a bit of a grain of salt.
Wow, really not very much salt at all! [;)]
- M.
I encountered my first mountain wave in the mid 90Â’s after buying my first portable GPS. I left San Carlos airport (SQL) in my 182 direct to Las VegasÂ…
This path took me directly over terrain in the Sierra Nevada mountain range that had peaks into the 15K range.
As I passed over the mountains, I entered a downdraft that completely overwhelmed the plane. The VSI needle was pegged and the altimeter started unwinding at an alarming rate… Probably 5-6 thousand feet per minute.
The amazing thing is there was no turbulence… Never a bump. Fortunately, the mountain range dropped dramatically to the valley below, so there was never a threat of hitting ground.
I learned a few things from this experienceÂ….
Hold attitude not altitude.
Sometimes the direct route is not the safe route. Transcend mountain ranges through valleys with plenty of extra altitude.
Even though the winds are not 40 knots plus (winds aloft on this day were light) severe downdrafts can still exist.
John
In reply to:
Even though the winds are not 40 knots plus (winds aloft on this day were light) severe downdrafts can still exist.
John,
Thanks for sharing that information! Flying over flat terrain all of the time, I didn’t know that. I’ll keep that in mind when I fly to CA this summer.
I just read an article from one of the ‘too many’ flying mags I get, that said in turbulence it’s ok to use the autopilot as long as you don’t have the ‘altitude hold’ on. Does everyone agree with that?
Will
In reply to:
In reply to:
I just read an article from one of the ‘too many’ flying mags I get, that said in turbulence it’s ok to use the autopilot as long as you don’t have the ‘altitude hold’ on. Does everyone agree with that?
Will
I find that the 55X generally does a good job in light to moderate turbulence…
When I encountered the mountain wave I had the A/P on… The nose started to rise I kicked it off and maintained attitude.
I wouldn’t take the hard position either way on this issue… I think you have to feel how the airplane is responding to the A/P and turn it off if you think you can do a better job keeping the sunny side up!
John
John:
See my post below. The idea in mountain wave, or any other turbulence for that matter, is to “ride the wave” which means do not try to hold altitude rigidly. Ask ATC for a block altitude and ALLOW a degree of altitude drift to avoid severe airspeed drifts.
So, it is not a question of whether the autopilot does “a better job” or not, it is a question of what you want the autopilot to be doing.
By all means, in waves and turbulence, use the autopilot. But turn off the altitude hold as your intention in these conditions is to NOT hold altitude rigidly.
In reply to:
There is NO common thread regarding the causes; 1-engine failure(Sun-Sential)
Denis,
I won’t get into the debate over common link. I have spoken with Jeff Ippoliti, and I do know that there was NO engine failure involved in his decision to deploy the CAPS. Reports that mention engine failure are just wrong. Of course, he shut the engine down as part of the deployment - as required by the POH.
If you are talking about the same report I read, then you’ll note other significantly erroneous reporting there, too…
For instance, our CAPS system is designed and provided by Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS). To my knowledge, that’s not the same as Free Flight Enterprises, which the story claims is the company that builds them.
- Mike.
After years of mountain flying, I always took off the AP when in a big roll. However, through experience, you can pretty much predict where you will encounter the mountain roll. Also, in places like Banning Pass, there are times you are going to get some pretty wild turbulence----in those instances, you go around another way to get into PSP. So much of it is learning and asking about mountain flying before you get in over your head!
Brian…
While the original question was about mountain waves I would agree, never use ALT HOLD or turn it off immediately upon entering one…
However the question was expanded to turbulence in general as you will note below… Here I would use whatever method does the better job… A/P or me.
In reply to:
I just read an article from one of the ‘too many’ flying mags I get, that said in turbulence it’s ok to use the autopilot as long as you don’t have the ‘altitude hold’ on. Does everyone agree with that?
Just to clarify things a bit…
There are two kinds of mountain waves: Breaking and non-breaking. Non-breaking waves are not violent and loss of control is usually not an issue. These mountain waves should be hand flown and as Brian said, you may need to ride the wave out and accept whatever altitude this wave allows (ATC is well aware of this and normally grants block altitudes even in the busy airspace here in the east). Departure from controlled flight only happens when the pilot refuses to maintain a safe airspeed.
Breaking waves, on the other hand, are very violent and can cause departure from controlled flight in seconds. Slowing the airplane down to below maneuvering speed is very important and maintaining wings level while accepting the altitude deviations is usually the best the pilot can hope to accomplish.
No debate Mike, but the POINT was, no common cause leading to “CAPS” deployment.
In reply to:
In reply to:
For instance, our CAPS system is designed and provided by Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS). To my knowledge, that’s not the same as Free Flight Enterprises, which the story claims is the company that builds them.
Free Flight Enterprises website says, “We are parachute systems specialists and we do custom sewing.” So it is possible they are a subcontractor to BRS; they have pictures of BRS chutes on their (rather spare) site.
Whilesite which may in the future have a Cirrus connection. They have a press release that their GPS sensor (which they acquired with some of the Trimble assets) has been selected by Eclipse to use with Avio. Avio of course is Eclipse’s branding of the next generation Avidyne integrated NAV/COMM suite.
To really appreciate the highly thoughtful accurate reporting by the Sun Sentinel, you really needed to see the headline on the print version of this story in this morning’s paper: "ENGINE WOES FORCE PILOT TO BAIL OUT AFTER TAKEOFF
Nuff Said !!
John Kinsey
N623SK"
In reply to:
No debate Mike, but the POINT was, no common cause leading to “CAPS” deployment.
Denis,
Just for fun:
Yes, there was a common cause. Just the same way as one could say that 100% of all divorces are caused by marriage, one could say that the common cause of these deployments was flying Cirrus airplanes. And, no doubt, someone will.
At a somewhat less facetious level, there is still a common cause - perceived or actual, imminent or current, loss of control.
See where I’m going? The question is not whether there is a common cause, but at what level. If one was weather, and one was electronics, some will say that there’s no link; others will see no difference.
Language is a wonderful thing, isn’t it? Not just English - all of them have this in common!
- Mike.
PS - Oops, I got into the debate over “Common Link” - after I promised myself I wouldn’t! My bad.