Does anyone have any additional infornmation about 232CD’s emergency landing in Gibson, GA on 8/19/01?
The FAA has a brief report about it on their web site.
Does anyone have any additional infornmation about 232CD’s emergency landing in Gibson, GA on 8/19/01?
The FAA has a brief report about it on their web site.
Here’s the report to which Clark refers, from http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/A_0820_N.TXThttp://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/A_0820_N.TXT. The FAA site in question is http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/iirform.htmhttp://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/iirform.htm. Note that the Feds still think that the SR22 is an experimental aircraft…
**** 08/20/2001 Preliminary Accident/Incident Data Record 10 ****
A. Type: A Mid Air: N Missing: N Entry date: 08/20/2001
From: SOUTHERN REGION OPERATIONS CENTER
B. Reg. No.: 232CD M/M: EXP Desc: EXP-2001 CIRRUS SR-22
Activity: Unknown Phase: Unknown GA-A/C: General Aviation
Descr: EXPERIMENTAL ACFT ENCOUNTERED A THUNDERSTORM THAT PUT IT IN IMC
CONDITIONS, THE PILOT ATTEMPTED TO DEVIATE OUT OF THE STORM, AND
THE ACFT ENGINE QUIT, THE PILOT MADE AN EMERGENCY LANDING IN A
FIELD, OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN, GIBSON, GA.
WX: UNKN
Damage: Unknown
C2. Injury Data: # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
D. Location. City: GIBSON State: GA Country: US
E. Event Date: 08/19/2001 Time:
F. Invest Coverage. IIC: Reg/DO: SO11 DO City: ATLANTA
DO State: GA Others: NTSB
Dest: UNKN Last Radio Cont: UNKN Flt Plan: NONE
Last Clearance: UNKN WX Briefing: N
Other:
N232CD is s/n 0019 according to AvWeb, and still registered to Cirrus Design. However, this may be old information.
Does anyone have any additional infornmation about 232CD’s emergency landing in Gibson, GA on 8/19/01?
The FAA has a brief report about it on their web site.
With this accident, I count six accidents or incidents in Cirruses so far: 2 fatal crashes, 2 engine-outs (including this SR-22 report) and 2 bad landings off the runway. These numbers seem very high for so few planes in the field, particularly for a plane touted for its safety. Is anyone aware of other accidents?
I thought i saw this plane at the factory on the rwy. They used it as a company demonstrator. I am probably wrong, but i have the distinct memory. End March timeframe.
Also at that time there was discussion of 6 prop strikes. Most were minor but there was a lot of finger pointing between the company doing the training and the factory.
I dont understand what the arguing is about. This is not your grandfather’s cessna. It’s not a pussycat to land, it has to be positively flown all the way and at all times. I also think there is a tendency to fly this plane on an approach profile “that is comfortable to the pilot…” Big mistake, when they give u the profile, fly it. I dont think anyone of us would fly a barron or 727 with a cessna profile. Ive seen and heard people claiming they fly a shallow, loose approach because they are more comfortable with it, it gives them time to setup (setup what?) etc. Of course if the engine dies they are way out of luck because they arent making that rwy. Or they slow the plane up a lot and fly it on the backside with a ton of power. At flare they are mushing with power and then whoops, either cut the power and bounce… when the bounce the nose heavy plane does what’s natural and boom dings the prop… or the stall the tail by flaring way nose high as they cut power, either the tail is stalling and they bounce or it just drops the nose hard.
Fly the profile and I dont think good pilots will have a problem. I also dont think it’s an affective crosswind plane, the cirrus is more like a hot rod, a 993 porsche. It’s not a pussycat, and frankly I dont think we should want one. Everything is a compromise. Make it land slower and we lose the top end. We already lost 20k for those cuffs on the wing. I think it’s a good intermediate plane and needs to be flown professionally. I think that it exactly what most pilots strive to be, professionals in the cockpit with a heathy respect for the aircraft we fly.
As a bit of incentive tha extra cash for 3 blades, u get about an extra 3 inches of prop clearance. So tell the wife it’s a “safety” thing.
For those of u on the wait list, have no fear. While the cirrus isnt a perfect plane, it’s a good and solid ship. I do think we will have to work with the company on the squaks, but what plane doesnt have issues. The big ones I have are safety issues and it’s just minor stuff that every pilot should be aware of when they pick anything handbuilt up. Frankly the only thing that really concerns me is the engine going out, or a control surface. That aside, if u do well in training it’s a straight forward plane. Hell I could get mine to break in the stall or even do more than a mush.
sorry for the rant, if anyone is in florida Im looking for anyone wanting a ride. Just got my glaresheild in (finally!) and the battery charged. Geez what does it take to get a die hard certified for the cirrus!
dave
249CD
Does anyone have any additional infornmation about 232CD’s emergency landing in Gibson, GA on 8/19/01?
The FAA has a brief report about it on their web site.
Here’s the report to which Clark refers, from http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/A_0820_N.TXThttp://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/A_0820_N.TXT. The FAA site in question is http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/iirform.htmhttp://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/iirform.htm. Note that the Feds still think that the SR22 is an experimental aircraft…
**** 08/20/2001 Preliminary Accident/Incident Data Record 10 ****
A. Type: A Mid Air: N Missing: N Entry date: 08/20/2001
From: SOUTHERN REGION OPERATIONS CENTER
B. Reg. No.: 232CD M/M: EXP Desc: EXP-2001 CIRRUS SR-22
Activity: Unknown Phase: Unknown GA-A/C: General Aviation
Descr: EXPERIMENTAL ACFT ENCOUNTERED A THUNDERSTORM THAT PUT IT IN IMC
CONDITIONS, THE PILOT ATTEMPTED TO DEVIATE OUT OF THE STORM, AND
THE ACFT ENGINE QUIT, THE PILOT MADE AN EMERGENCY LANDING IN A
FIELD, OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN, GIBSON, GA.
WX: UNKN
Damage: Unknown
C2. Injury Data: # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
D. Location. City: GIBSON State: GA Country: US
E. Event Date: 08/19/2001 Time:
F. Invest Coverage. IIC: Reg/DO: SO11 DO City: ATLANTA
DO State: GA Others: NTSB
Dest: UNKN Last Radio Cont: UNKN Flt Plan: NONE
Last Clearance: UNKN WX Briefing: N
Other:
Check out www.aero-news.net
Does anyone have any additional infornmation about 232CD’s emergency landing in Gibson, GA on 8/19/01?
The FAA has a brief report about it on their web site.
Here’s the report to which Clark refers, from http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/A_0820_N.TXThttp://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/A_0820_N.TXT. The FAA site in question is http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/iirform.htmhttp://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/iirform.htm. Note that the Feds still think that the SR22 is an experimental aircraft…
**** 08/20/2001 Preliminary Accident/Incident Data Record 10 ****
A. Type: A Mid Air: N Missing: N Entry date: 08/20/2001
From: SOUTHERN REGION OPERATIONS CENTER
B. Reg. No.: 232CD M/M: EXP Desc: EXP-2001 CIRRUS SR-22
Activity: Unknown Phase: Unknown GA-A/C: General Aviation
Descr: EXPERIMENTAL ACFT ENCOUNTERED A THUNDERSTORM THAT PUT IT IN IMC
CONDITIONS, THE PILOT ATTEMPTED TO DEVIATE OUT OF THE STORM, AND
THE ACFT ENGINE QUIT, THE PILOT MADE AN EMERGENCY LANDING IN A
FIELD, OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN, GIBSON, GA.
WX: UNKN
Damage: Unknown
C2. Injury Data: # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
D. Location. City: GIBSON State: GA Country: US
E. Event Date: 08/19/2001 Time:
F. Invest Coverage. IIC: Reg/DO: SO11 DO City: ATLANTA
DO State: GA Others: NTSB
Dest: UNKN Last Radio Cont: UNKN Flt Plan: NONE
Last Clearance: UNKN WX Briefing: N
Other:
Flying into a thunderstorm and the engine quit.
Induction icing?
mdz
Flying into a thunderstorm and the engine quit.
Induction icing?
Alternate air source?
Great pickup. Someone remembers training.
Flying into a thunderstorm and the engine quit.
Induction icing?
Alternate air source?
Landings.com’s database is current as of July 6 and shows N232CD still in Cirrus Design’s hands.
N232CD is s/n 0019 according to AvWeb, and still registered to Cirrus Design. However, this may be old information.
Does anyone have any additional infornmation about 232CD’s emergency landing in Gibson, GA on 8/19/01?
The FAA has a brief report about it on their web site.
With this accident, I count six accidents or incidents in Cirruses so far: 2 fatal crashes, 2 engine-outs (including this SR-22 report) and 2 bad landings off the runway. These numbers seem very high for so few planes in the field, particularly for a plane touted for its safety. Is anyone aware of other accidents?
is it true that there have been 18 prop strikes???
Dave,
Let’s look at the numbers to which you refer:
- One fatal accident on a pre-production aircraft during the flight test program. A tragedy, to be sure, but such is part of the hazardous existence of the test pilot. The problem with the design was fixed in the production aircraft.
- One fatal accident with a VFR-only pilot flying at low altitude in mountainous terrain in instrument conditions. It doesn’t matter what you’re flying — that is all too often a recipe for disaster, as it sadly was in this case. Can’t blame the aircraft for this one.
- An engine-out in an SR20 and an engine-out in an SR22. That’s two completely different engine models (an IO-360 and an IO-550), under entirely different circumstances. The only common feature is that in both cases the pilots made top-notch off-airport landings… a testament to both the pilots’ skill and the airplane’s landing characteristics.
- One landing accident due to an “excited passenger” who kept pushing on the rudder pedal during the landing rollout. Name me an airplane in which this passenger’s actions would not have caused an off-runway excursion! (Though you can’t really feel too badly toward anyone who got excited by a ride in a Cirrus.)
- One landing accident caused by porpoising on landing. Any airplane will porpoise on landing if the pilot puts his or her mind to it. (I speak from sad experience in a Cessna Cardinal, in which I did such an impressive porpoise that I was tempted to name the airplane ‘Flipper’.)
In summary, I can’t see how anyone could look at this record and regard the design as unsafe. If it were, we would have had Cirrus pilots popping the parachute left and right by now. In fact, no one has had to use the 'chute yet.
Sincerely,
Roger
With this accident, I count six accidents or incidents in Cirruses so far: 2 fatal crashes, 2 engine-outs (including this SR-22 report) and 2 bad landings off the runway. These numbers seem very high for so few planes in the field, particularly for a plane touted for its safety. Is anyone aware of other accidents?
is it true that there have been 18 prop strikes???
Bill,
I’m afraid this question sounds a bit like “When did you stop beating your wife?”
Can you provide a source — in particular, a link to a specific web page — for this statistic? If so, please share it.
Thanks,
Roger
My understanding is 3 engine-outs: Chicago, Atlanta, Atlanta.
I’m only aware of one bad landing off runway: Springfield.
Not withstanding the terrible tradegy of Scott Anderson, I wouldn’t count it in the tally because while it was a production airplane, it was different from the ones we fly. Therefore I’d count one fatal: Tuscon.
Not sure how this compares to other new airplanes, or other similar airplanes.
Andy
With this accident, I count six accidents or incidents in Cirruses so far: 2 fatal crashes, 2 engine-outs (including this SR-22 report) and 2 bad landings off the runway. These numbers seem very high for so few planes in the field, particularly for a plane touted for its safety. Is anyone aware of other accidents?
is it true that there have been 18 prop strikes???
My understanding is 3 engine-outs: Chicago, Atlanta, Atlanta.
I’m only aware of one bad landing off runway: Springfield.
Not withstanding the terrible tradegy of Scott Anderson, I wouldn’t count it in the tally because while it was a production airplane, it was different from the ones we fly. Therefore I’d count one fatal: Tuscon.
Not sure how this compares to other new airplanes, or other similar airplanes.
Regarding other new airplanes:
I wish my memory were a little better. Seems like there was a part of Collins’s column in Flying mag last month or the month before about how even new planes have fatal accidents. I believe he mentioned a Columbia 300 fatal, a Malibu Meridian, and a Cirrus. IIRC, he mentioned that the Cirrus had the largest fleet size at the time of the first fatal, but his point was that even new, “safe” aircraft can still be risky in certain circumstances. And all three fleet sizes were relatively small at the time of the first fatal accidents.
My apologies if this was actually from another publication, I can’t quite place it…
Steve
In summary, I can’t see how anyone could look at this record and regard the design as unsafe. If it were, we would have had Cirrus pilots popping the parachute left and right by now. In fact, no one has had to use the 'chute yet.
Your right. It is not the plane it is the people stupid enough to fly them.
Your right. It is not the plane it is the people stupid enough to fly them.
It’s not clear whether by “them” you mean ALL airplanes or just CIRRUS airplanes. Either way, you insult most (if not all) of us on this board.
C’mon, Art…
- Mike.
Dave,
Well put. Thanks for your post!
Cheers,
Roger
Fly the profile and I dont think good pilots will have a problem. I also dont think it’s an affective crosswind plane, the cirrus is more like a hot rod, a 993 porsche
Au contraire, I think it’s a wonderful crosswind plane. It is trivial to land in crosswinds that would be impossible in most of the planes we’re otherwise used to. High wing loading and higher approach speeds make it require less dramatic control inputs and reduce its sensitivity to gusts. 10-15 knot crosswind components you can do in your sleep. Worst I’ve tried (and succeeded) is 35G42 at 60 degrees to the runway (xwind component around 30 knots.) That was a hell of a ride though; I sure didn’t want to try it again!
I thought i saw this plane at the factory on the rwy. They used it as a company demonstrator. I am probably wrong, but i have the distinct memory. End March timeframe.
Also at that time there was discussion of 6 prop strikes. Most were minor but there was a lot of finger pointing between the company doing the training and the factory.
I dont understand what the arguing is about. This is not your grandfather’s cessna. It’s not a pussycat to land, it has to be positively flown all the way and at all times. I also think there is a tendency to fly this plane on an approach profile “that is comfortable to the pilot…” Big mistake, when they give u the profile, fly it. I dont think anyone of us would fly a barron or 727 with a cessna profile. Ive seen and heard people claiming they fly a shallow, loose approach because they are more comfortable with it, it gives them time to setup (setup what?) etc. Of course if the engine dies they are way out of luck because they arent making that rwy. Or they slow the plane up a lot and fly it on the backside with a ton of power. At flare they are mushing with power and then whoops, either cut the power and bounce… when the bounce the nose heavy plane does what’s natural and boom dings the prop… or the stall the tail by flaring way nose high as they cut power, either the tail is stalling and they bounce or it just drops the nose hard.
Fly the profile and I dont think good pilots will have a problem. I also dont think it’s an affective crosswind plane, the cirrus is more like a hot rod, a 993 porsche. It’s not a pussycat, and frankly I dont think we should want one. Everything is a compromise. Make it land slower and we lose the top end. We already lost 20k for those cuffs on the wing. I think it’s a good intermediate plane and needs to be flown professionally. I think that it exactly what most pilots strive to be, professionals in the cockpit with a heathy respect for the aircraft we fly.
As a bit of incentive tha extra cash for 3 blades, u get about an extra 3 inches of prop clearance. So tell the wife it’s a “safety” thing.
For those of u on the wait list, have no fear. While the cirrus isnt a perfect plane, it’s a good and solid ship. I do think we will have to work with the company on the squaks, but what plane doesnt have issues. The big ones I have are safety issues and it’s just minor stuff that every pilot should be aware of when they pick anything handbuilt up. Frankly the only thing that really concerns me is the engine going out, or a control surface. That aside, if u do well in training it’s a straight forward plane. Hell I could get mine to break in the stall or even do more than a mush.
sorry for the rant, if anyone is in florida Im looking for anyone wanting a ride. Just got my glaresheild in (finally!) and the battery charged. Geez what does it take to get a die hard certified for the cirrus!
dave
249CD
Dave,
What part of Florida? We’re in Daytona.
Paul