NTSB Preliminary Accident Report

NTSB Identification: NYC02FA089

Accident occurred Wednesday, April 24, 2002 at Parish, NY
Aircraft:Cirrus SR-22, registration: N837CD
Injuries: 2 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

HISTORY OF FLIGHT

On April 24, 2002, at 1906 eastern daylight time, a Cirrus SR-22, N837CD, was destroyed when it impacted terrain in Parish, New York. The two certificated private pilots were fatally injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. No flight plan was on file for the flight, which originated at Syracuse Hancock International Airport (SYR), Syracuse, New York, and was destined for Greater Rochester International Airport (ROC), Rochester, New York. The personal flight was conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.

The two pilots were co-owners of the airplane, which was delivered to them on April 18, 2002. According to a brother of one of the pilots, they had intended on flying to Rochester to show the airplane to a friend.

During an initial radio call to Syracuse Clearance Delivery, at 1821, one of the pilots stated that they would depart VFR for Oswego County Airport (FZY), Fulton, New York, at 5,500 feet. The crew was given an altitude restriction of 2,000 feet within 5 miles of Syracuse International, the departure frequency, and a transponder code of 4626.

At 1822, one of the pilots contacted Syracuse Ground Control. He requested, and was cleared for taxi to runway 10.

At 1829, one of the pilots contacted Syracuse Local Control (tower), and requested takeoff clearance. He was then cleared for takeoff.

At 1830, the crew was advised to turn left, to a heading of 360, and contact departure control, which was acknowledged.

One of the pilots then contacted Syracuse Departure Control, and stated that they were passing through 1,200 feet. The departure controller advised the pilot that he was in radar contact, to proceed on course, and to climb to 5,500 feet, which the pilot acknowledged.

At 1836, the controller asked if they were still going to make a VFR practice approach into Oswego County. One of the pilots answered to the affirmative, that they were going to do a practice GPS RWY 24 approach. The pilot and the controller then discussed whether or not to cancel VFR flight following. The pilot requested cancellation, which the controller acknowledged. The controller then advised the pilot to set 1200 as a transponder code, and approved a change of radio frequency.

There were no additional transmissions recorded from the accident airplane.

A radar track confirmed that the airplane proceeded to Oswego County Airport.

A flight instructor, who was on the ground at Oswego County, watching his student pilot conduct a solo traffic pattern flight, reported seeing a Cirrus, “Charlie Delta” touch down on runway 06 about 1840. He recognized the airplane as being a new hangar tenant at the FBO where he worked. The flight instructor knew that there were two owners, but did not notice who was flying or how many people were on board the airplane.

The airplane touched down in the first 1,000 feet of runway. The flight instructor observed all three wheels on the ground, then heard a sudden application of power. Rotation occurred quickly, and the airplane made a steep climb. The climb was “well underway” by the time the airplane reached the intersection of runway 15/33, (about 2,000 feet from the approach end of the runway). The airplane reached pattern altitude by the end of runway 06, and pitched forward “abruptly” to arrest the climb, while simultaneously entering the left crosswind. Power appeared to be reduced as the pitch angle was decreased.

The flight instructor lost sight of the Cirrus in the crosswind. He turned his attention to the final approach area, and shortly thereafter observed his student making a full stop landing. As the student was taxiing the airplane to the ramp, the flight instructor saw the Cirrus on final. “The plane made another well-stabilized approach and smooth touchdown. Again there was a sharp application of power, another steep climbout, a quick transition to level flight at pattern altitude, and a simultaneous left crosswind turn.”

The flight instructor did not see the airplane return to the airport.

Radar data indicated that a target departed Oswego Airport, and climbed to 5,500 feet, then headed southeast, toward the accident area, maintaining between 5,200 feet and 5,700 feet. En route, it made a left, 90-degree turn, followed by a right 90-degree turn. It then continued southeast, and made a right, approximately 360-degree turn, followed by a left 360-degree turn. The target then continued the left turn, until it was transiting east-southeast, and making smaller left and right turns, until it reached the airspace over the accident site.

Target altitude readouts in the vicinity of the accident site included: 5,600 feet at 1906:14; 5,700 feet at 1906:23; 5,300 feet at 1906:28; 4,400 feet at 1906:32; 3,800 feet at 1906:37; and 3,200 feet at 1906:42.

A witness to the accident was outside his home, about 1/2 mile to the north. The witness was accustomed to airplanes performing maneuvers in the area due to its sparse population. He saw the airplane, and noticed that the pilot would “cut the engine,” then descend the airplane, and pull up, recovering with full power. The airplane performed the maneuvers for about 5 minutes, and the witness saw the maneuver repeated “three or four times.” The witness stated that he was fairly sure the airplane “probably did a turn” at the end of the pull-ups, but he wasn’t sure which direction the airplane may have turned.

After the airplane completed its last pull-up, the witness noticed that it entered another dive. The airplane “suddenly went into a spiral and he went straight down. He seemed to keep a constant speed on his descent and it looked like he was in slow motion spinning. He continued nose down to the tree line and continued straight down to the ground. I did not hear his engine on at all once he went into the spiral. I did not think he had an engine problem and was intentionally cutting the power of his plane and then giving it full power on the climbout.”

A second witness was also outside his home, about 1 mile west-northwest of the airplane. When he saw the airplane, it was traveling in an easterly direction. The airplane was “pretty small” and had “plenty of altitude.” The airplane “peeled off to the left,” and the witness “remembered seeing the bottom of the aircraft.” The airplane passed through about 180 degrees of turn, then leveled off, “and right after it came back to level flight it stalled.” The airplane “went into a nose dive spin and then a flat spin into the ground.” It “tumbled in a downward spiral, which turned into a flat spin because it was basically flat, spinning on its own axis, slightly nose down, like a turning top.” The witness believed the engine was running the entire time, and expected the pilot to add power to pull up. He did not hear any sputtering from the engine.

A third witness, who observed the airplane with the second witness, noted that the airplane “rolled over once and then twisted, which looked to be intentional. Suddenly, the plane began doing a nose spin, which turned into a flat spin. It appeared as though the pilot lost control of the plane.”

A fourth witness heard a “strange plane noise. It sounded like 'wah, wah, wah.” He looked up to see the airplane “spiraling nose first, straight towards the ground.” As it was descending, he heard “a couple of ‘pop’ ‘pop’ noises.”

PILOT INFORMATION

One of the pilots held a private pilot certificate, with ratings for single engine and multi-engine land airplanes, and instrument airplane. He was also an Aviation Medical Examiner. His latest Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) second class medical certificate was dated December 12, 2000.

According to information relayed by one of his relatives, the pilot had recorded 311 hours of flight time in his logbook. His most recent flight prior to the accident was on April 20, 2002.

Post mortem medical examination confirmed that the pilot had been sitting in the airplane’s left front seat at the time of the accident.

The other pilot also held a private pilot certificate, with ratings for single engine land airplanes and instrument airplane. His latest FAA third class medical certificate was dated June 8, 2001. The pilot’s logbook was not recovered; however, on his Cirrus client profile sheet, dated April 22, 2002, he stated he had 475 hours of flight time, all in single-engine airplanes.

Post mortem medical examination confirmed that the pilot had been sitting in the airplane’s right front seat at the time of the accident.

A contract flight instructor, who had flown with both pilots, estimated that the first pilot had about 20 hours in make and model, and the second pilot had about 30 hours in make and model. The flight instructor believed the accident flight was the first one in which the two pilots flew together.

There was no evidence as to which pilot was “pilot in command,” or which pilot was at the controls leading up to, or during the accident sequence.

AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

The airplane was constructed primarily of composite materials. The two-piece elevator and the rudder were aluminum.

The airplane had fixed landing gear, and electrically controlled, single-slotted flaps.

Pilot controls included conventional rudder pedals, and “single-handed side control yokes” (side sticks) for elevator and aileron control.

The airplane was powered by a Teledyne Continental IO-550-N, six-cylinder, normally aspirated, fuel-injected engine, capable of developing 310 horsepower at 2,700 rpm. The engine drove a three-bladed, Hartzell constant-speed, aluminum-alloy propeller.

The airplane was also equipped with a Cirrus Airplane Parachute System (CAPS).

According to the SR-22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook:

"CAPS [is] designed to bring the aircraft and its occupants to the ground in the event of a life- threatening emergency. The system is intended to saves the lives of the occupants but will most likely destroy the aircraft and may, in adverse circumstances, cause serious injury or death to the occupants.

The CAPS consists of a parachute, a solid-propellant rocket to deploy the parachute, a [manually-activated] rocket activation handle, and a harness imbedded within the fuselage structure. A composite box containing the parachute and solid-propellant rocket is mounted to the airplane structure immediately aft of the baggage compartment bulkhead. The box is covered and protected from the elements by a thin composite cover.

The parachute is enclosed within a deployment bag that stages the deployment and inflation sequence. The deployment bag creates an orderly deployment process by allowing the canopy to inflate only after the rocket motor has pulled the parachute lines taut. The parachute itself is a 2400-square-foot round canopy equipped with a slider, an annular-shaped fabric panel with a diameter significantly less than the open diameter of the canopy. A three-point harness connects the airplane fuselage structure to the parachute.

CAPS is initiated by pulling theÂ…activation T-handle installed in the cabin ceiling on the airplane centerline just above the pilot’s right shoulder. A placarded cover, held in place with hook and loop fasteners, covers the T-handle and prevents tampering with the control. The cover is removed by pulling the black tab at the forward edge of the cover. Pulling the activation T-handle removes it from the o-ring seal that holds it in place and takes out the approximately six inches of slack in the cable connecting it to the rocket. Once this slack is removed, further motion of the handle arms and releases a firing pin, igniting the solid-propellant rocket in the parachute canister."

According to Cirrus Design Corporation records, the airplane was delivered to the pilots, who were joint owners, on April 18, 2002.

The airplane’s new logbook did not contain time-in-use information. A work order, dated April 19, 2002, listed airframe total time as 19.3 hours. The work order reported a deformation of the landing light housing, and noted that the airplane would be returned to the factory so the light could be repaired under warranty.

The airplane’s usable fuel capacity was 81 gallons. The latest refueling occurred on April 22, 2002, when the airplane was “topped off” with 58 gallons of 100-octane low lead avgas. After the accident, the fuel truck and a fuel sample were examined by FAA inspectors, with no discrepancies noted. There were also no problems noted with aircraft subsequently fueled from the truck.

There was no flight data or cockpit voice recording devices installed on the airplane.

METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION

Weather, recorded at Oswego County Airport at 1854, included winds from 060 degrees true at 6 knots, visibility 10 statute miles, clear skies, a temperature of 54 degrees F, and a barometric pressure of 30.10 inches Hg.

Weather, recorded at Syracuse Hancock International Airport at 1854, included winds from 070 degrees true at 8 knots, visibility 10 statute miles, a few clouds at 24,000 feet, a temperature of 56 degrees F, and a barometric pressure of 30.12 inches Hg.

WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION

The wreckage was located on hilly, forested terrain, at 43 degrees, 21.86 minutes north latitude, and 76 degrees, 02.25 minutes west longitude, at an elevation of about 600 feet. Except for some broken branches above the wreckage, and a small tree cut off next to it, there was no wreckage path through the trees.

Except for the vertical stabilizer and rudder, the airplane was upright, and substantially consumed in a post-impact fire. Remaining airframe material was charred and brittle.

The nose of the wreckage was pointing toward 030 degrees magnetic. The engine came to rest slanted about 20 degrees nose-down, with dirt and roots bulldozed forward, about 1 foot.

The airplane’s right aileron, and the trailing outboard edge of the right wing were crushed against a tree. The wing was cocked forward of its normal 90-degree position relative to the fuselage, and the outboard end pointed toward 090 degrees magnetic.

The empennage was burnt and bent to the left side of the airplane, and pointed toward 230 degrees magnetic. The vertical stabilizer and rudder were bent, and broken over the left horizontal stabilizer. The left elevator was separated from the empennage, and not burned. The right elevator was also separated from the empennage, and the right horizontal stabilizer was in a tree almost directly above the empennage.

The left wing was cocked aft of its normal 90-degree position relative to the fuselage, and the outboard end pointed toward 270 degrees magnetic.

All flight control surfaces were accounted for at the accident scene. Control continuity was confirmed from the cockpit area to all flight controls. The flap motor screw position correlated to the flaps being up.

One of the propeller blades was not damaged. Another propeller blade was bent back about 20 degrees, and exhibited leading blade tip damage and rotational scoring. The third propeller blade, which was bent back, and buried beneath the engine, had severe damage, including a large piece broken out of the leading edge, and rotational scoring to the outboard 8 inches.

The engine was burned, and the number 1 cylinder exhibited melting. Crankshaft continuity was confirmed from the front to the rear of the engine. Both magnetos were broken from their mounts, and exhibited severe burning. Neither magneto would turn. The throttle body was burned, and the butterfly valve was jammed in the half-opened position. The alternate air “Y” was partially melted, and the alternate air door was in the “direct” position. The induction tubing was burnt and partially melted. The starter was broken at the mount. Ignition leads were burnt. The fuel manifold (spider) was fire-damaged, but the fuel screen was clean. The fuel pump was burned. The pump was removed, and the pump drive would not turn. The mixture lever was about ¼ inch above idle cutoff. The exteriors of the spark plugs were burned. The top plugs were removed and internally appeared new. The propeller governor lever was full aft. The engine was retained for further examination.

The cockpit area was consumed by fire. All gauges and switches were destroyed. Throttle, mixture, and propeller control positions could not be determined. All of the seats were destroyed, except the left pilot seat cushion, which exhibited leading edge compression.

The CAPS parachute was found outside the airframe, in its deployment bag, in front of the right wing. The composite CAPS cover was found about 20 feet in front of the airplane, with no damage to its interior (kick plate) face. The solid propellant rocket was found on the ground, aft of the right wing, with cables leading to the wreckage. The propellant was expended.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

According to the SR-22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook:

"The SR22 is not approved for spins, and has not been tested or certified for spin recovery characteristics. The only approved and demonstrated method of spin recovery is activation of the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (See CAPS Deployment, this section). Because of this, if the aircraft ‘departs controlled flight,’ the CAPS must be deployed.

While the stall characteristics of the SR20 make accidental entry into a spin extremely unlikely, it is possible. Spin entry can be avoided by using good airmanship: coordinated use of controls in turns, proper airspeed control following the recommendations of this Handbook, and never abusing the flight controls with accelerated inputs when close to the stall. If, at the stall, the controls are misapplied and abused accelerated inputs are made to the elevator, rudder and/ or ailerons, an abrupt wing drop may be felt and a spiral or spin may be entered. In some cases it may be difficult to determine if the aircraft has entered a spiral or the beginning of a spin.

If time and altitude permit, the following procedures may be used to determine whether the aircraft is in a recoverable spiral/ incipient spin or is unrecoverable and, therefore, has departed controlled flight.

In all cases, if the aircraft enters an unusual attitude from which recovery is not expected before ground impact, immediate deployment of the CAPS is required. The minimum demonstrated altitude loss for a CAPS deployment from a one- turn spin is 920 feet. Activation at higher altitudes provides enhanced safety margins for parachute recoveries. Do not waste time and altitude trying to recover from a spiral/ spin before activating CAPS."

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020502X00613&key=1

Very interesting prel. report. I didn’t read anything that sounded like there was an obvious control surface failure; rather, it sounds like the pilot(s) simply flew it into a spin. Hard to know what to make of the fact that the rocket fuel was spent, but chute was still in deployment bag…could be rocket and chute ejected upon crash, fire ignited rocket, which didn’t become airborne (enough) to pull chute from bag. Plane was upright (contrary to reports of inverted spin), but it could have flipped upright on its fall through the trees. Also, very interesting that rotational scoring found on prop…I’d expect enough negative G’s in an inverted spin or spiral to choke the engine.

While we may never know if they attempted to deploy the chute, this accident raises an interesting issue. If one is in strong negative G’s (and/or sideways G’s), head smashed against the roof because of a slightly loose lapbelt, etc, the act of pulling the chute activation cord could be extremely difficult. Could also be that a passenger’s body (or the pilot’s body) is obstructing clear access to the deployment lever in negative G’s. Something worth thinking about.

The report mentions the Mixture was about 1/4 " ahead of idle cut off. Could the pilot have inadvertantly pulled the mixture off and then the mixture cable “stuck”, preventing him from moving it forward to re-start the engine? The loss of an engine during a stall series could have distracted him enough to get the plane into trouble. Pure speculation on my part.

I mean this as a true question, not a comment laid between the lines:

Is the report making an intimation that the pilots were on a pattern of pushing the edge of the envelope that evening?

Andy

Interesting that there is no mention of the CAPS safety pin being in or out. Being out might not tell much but being in would certainly add to the speculation about attempted CAPS deployment.

on the flip side, its easy to tell if they definitely DID NOT try to pull the 'chute - the handle would still be in the bracket socket…

In reply to:


I didn’t read anything that sounded like there was an obvious control surface failure; rather, it sounds like the pilot(s) simply flew it into a spin.


It sounds like the airplane was being maneuvered very abruptly, from the description of the witness to the high-perfomance touch and goes and the witness who saw the airplane “peel off to the left.” It isn’t clear from the description of the 5 minutes of dives/recoveries whether that was possibly practicing stalls and recoveries. This is the one that raised my eyebrows:

A third witness, who observed the airplane with the second witness, noted that the airplane “rolled over once and then twisted, which looked to be intentional.”

They clearly were not flying a straight and level mission here. This almost sounds like they were trying a roll or barrel roll.

I’m not intending to impugn the pilots. But in looking for explanations of what happened, maybe we should think about what the airplane would do if it fell out of inverted flight. I havenÂ’t done aerobatics in 20 years, and when I did it was in aircraft with basically symmetrical airfoils. The airfoils in the Cirrus (and Lancair, for that matter) are dramatically different from your typical spam can wing. Anyone have an opinion as to how the airplane would handle inverted flight?

I would presume that if the examiner could have determined if the chute had been pulled he/she would have mentioned so. My guess is that the fire so badly destroyed the cockpit that it might be impossible to tell by simply looking at the handle.

Consider the witnesses’ remarks about abrupt up/down/turn maneuvers, in relation to the pilot’s earlier remark to ATC that they intended to do a “practice GPS RWY 24 approach.” It sounds to me like they were doing general IFR familiarization with the plane, including practicing unusual attitudes in a known practice area. They may simply have been practicing recoveries and the plane slipped away from them.

While both pilots were experienced, their total time was not really that high (under 500 hours each). I think it would be worthwhile if the FAA investigated whether either pilot had ever had any spin training.

But in looking for explanations of what happened, maybe we should think about what the airplane would do if it fell out of inverted flight. I havenÂ’t done aerobatics in 20 years, and when I did it was in aircraft with basically symmetrical airfoils. >>The airfoils in the Cirrus (and Lancair, for that matter) are dramatically different from your typical spam can wing. Anyone have an opinion as to how the airplane would handle inverted flight?<<

I wouldn’t think any flat bottom airfoil is going to be particularly impressive inverted…but your question really goes to whether the cuffs, etc of the Cirrus might yield unexpected results inverted. Hard to speculate on that, absent actual flight testing.

I think it would be worthwhile if the FAA investigated whether either pilot had ever had any spin training.

Why? The only spin recovery on the POH (stated rather forcefully in the NTSB report) is the parachute. Although I guess you could make a case that spin training was a causative factor in the possible failure to follow the POH.

Since I became a “other side position holder” I have tried to keep my posts there but still learn alot here and hope to continue to be a responsible COPA member. That is the reason for this post.

Hanger talk, (and there is no basis other than that) has it the reason for the rudder limiter is that during the test phase a test pilot was exploring stall/spin in a certain power/load situation. The plane entered a spin in which conventional stall recovery techniques only tightened up the spin into a spiral. The test pilot let go of everything preparing to bale out resulting in recovery by the plane. The rudder limiter prevents rudder travel if more than 12 inches of manifold pressure is applied and the stall warning horn is active (normal Left rudder deflection of 20 degrees is limited to 12 degrees). There is no limit with less than 12 inches. What I learn from this was to stay out of this area of flight if something happened to the rudder limiter as it could bite bad.

Take or leave this information as you wish.

Mike

I think it would be worthwhile if the FAA investigated whether either pilot had ever had any spin training.

Why? The only spin recovery on the POH (stated rather forcefully in the NTSB report) is the parachute. Although I guess you could make a case that spin training was a causative factor in the possible failure to follow the POH.<<

I can’t imagine how spin training would be a causitive factor in this accident. If they were attempting an intentional spin in the Cirrus, that’s not training, that’s being a test pilot.

Every POH I’ve read also states forcefully that one should not fly the plane until one runs out of fuel. By your logic, no investigator should ever look in the gas tanks of a plane that lands off-field…after, the POH says right there that the only approved mode of flight is with fuel on board.

I can’t imagine how spin training would be a causitive factor

Since conventional spin training goes counter to the POH a pilot well trained in spin recovery might not rely on the parachute. Like the antilock breaking systems on cars, contrary to any previous training, you do not pump the breaks.

Here’s my guess. Two pilots who had never flown together before were trying to impress each other and let that cloud their otherwise good judgment and caution, and pushed themselves, the plane, or both beyond prudent limits. I’ve seen this tendancy many times before (perhaps in me?).

From the sound if it, they were likely in a flat spin, not a conventional one. Had they been in a conventional spin the nose would have been oscillating around a nose low attitude (about 45 degrees nose down for most aircraft). Yet at least two witnesses described the spin as “flat,” one going further to say it was spinning about its axis. Also, the plane seemed to land relatively flat on it’s belly, and not very nose down.

A flat spin is a very different animal from a conventional spin, with more (all?) control surfaces stalled. Many aircraft that recover nicely from a conventional spin will not recover from a flat spin.

Joe Mazza

From the sound if it, they were likely in a flat spin, not a conventional one.<<

What control inputs are required to induce a flat spin in a single? I can see how it can be entered relatively easy in a twin, but I’m having trouble visualizing the scenario in a normal category single engine airplane. Would the flat spin have to be preceded by a conventional spin?

I’m not sure how you’d get into one (never been in one myself), but I do know that they’re not limited to multi-engine aircraft. Aerobatic pilots do them routinely, and in many (most?) aircraft they can be recovered from. But in some they can’t, or at least not reliably (some high performance fighters, for example, like the F-14).

I wonder if Cirrus has any flat spin data on the 22.

Engine power on will tend to flatten a spin; that’s the reason a power cut is part of spin recovery. One could imagine the power of an SR22 could be a factor in converting a spin to a flat spin.

-Curt

I’ve no personal experience of flat spins, but the instructor I did spin training with told me that he had experienced them in a Cessna 150 Aerobat, and having some power on was necessary to make it enter that state. The most notable thing was that the rotation rate was slower than the standard spin, so, while the recovery technique was conventional, the initial application of down elevator and anti-spin rudder made the rotation rate INCREASE, as the flat spin was transformed back into a regular spin. He theorised that this might have been a factor in at least one accident in a C150 where an instructor and student died after spinning into the ground - i.e. that spin recovery was not followed through because of the initial unexpected response to the control inputs.

His advice in recovering from a flat spin was to persist with spin recovery control inputs even if initially it seemed to be making things worse.