SR22 down in AZ, 3 fatalities

Guest Discussion
1

Small Plane Out Of SFO Crashes Near Vegas
KNTV-TV

LAS VEGAS, Nev. - Three people are believed to have died Wednesday in a plane crash in Arizona about 80 miles east of Las Vegas, a Federal Aviation Administration spokesman said. The plane, a Cirrus SR22 made in 2005, was on its way to Phoenix from the San Francisco Bay area, he said.

Helicopter shots from the scene show the plan suffered heavy damage in the crash.

The plane is designed to deploy a parachute in an emergency, and the helicopter video showed a chute was deployed at the crash scene.

The people were in a four-seat, single-engine plane that crashed at 12:11 p.m. after its pilot reported icing on the plane’s wings at an altitude of about 13,000 feet, said FAA spokesman Ian Gregor.

Search crews from the Mojave County sheriff’s department were in a helicopter when they spotted the wreckage in rugged terrain about 15 miles northeast of Pierce Ferry Airport at about 1:50 p.m., Gregor said.

“The plane was destroyed,” he said. “Searchers reported that they saw three bodies and it appeared as if all three were fatalities.”

“The pilot was trying to detour around some bad weather but apparently got caught up in it,” he said.

Shortly after the pilot declared an emergency, air traffic controllers in the Los Angeles Center in Palmdale, Calif., lost radio contact.

The plane was owned by a New Orleans-based company.

2

NTSB Identification: SEA07LA002
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, October 01, 2006 in Kalispell, MT
Aircraft: Cessna 340A, registration: N1920E
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

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.

On October 1, 2006, approximately 1710 mountain daylight time, a Cessna 340A multiengine airplane, N1920E, sustained substantial damage following an emergency landing as a result of the airplane’s nose landing gear failing to extend prior to landing at the Glacier Park International Airport (GPI), Kalispell, Montana. T

Accident occurred Friday, October 06, 2006 in Stockbridge, GA
Aircraft: Cessna 177, registration: N2320Y
Injuries: 4 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.

On October 6, 2006, at 0945 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 177, N2320Y, registered to and operated by a private owner, as a 14 CFR Part 91 personal flight, collided with a power line during climb out at Berry Hill Airport, Stockbridge, Georgia. The airplane was destroyed by post-impact fire. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed. The private pilot, and three passengers were fatally injured. The flight was originating from the Berry Hill Airport, at the time of the accident.

A witness reported that the pilot conducted a preflight inspection of the airplane prior to his departure. The pilot told the witness that he was planning to fly over to St. Simons Island for a day trip, and returning that evening. The witness reported that the pilot checked his fuel tanks, and reported that he had “over 3/4 tanks full of fuel”. After the airplane was boarded the pilot conducted a run-up, and taxied to runway 29. During takeoff roll, the airplane did not get airborne until after approximately 2,000 feet down the runway. The airplane barely cleared a tree at the departure end of the runway, and continued to climb “slowly”. As the witness watch the airplane climb at an extreme nose high attitude, stalled, and clipped a tree. Seconds later two explosions were heard, and the witness drove to the accident scene.

Examination of the accident scene by NTSB showed that the airplane was located 509 feet from the departure end of runway 29, and came to rest inverted on the front lawn of a private residence.

Accident occurred Sunday, October 08, 2006 in St Charles, MO
Aircraft: Cessna 172N, registration: N4775D
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

The airplane was substantially damaged when it impacted the runway during landing. The pilot and passenger were not injured. The pilot reported that he was returning from a local flight when the accident occurred. He noted that the winds were calm.

Accident occurred Friday, October 13, 2006 in Tuntutuliak, AK
Aircraft: Cessna 207, registration: N7336U
Injuries: 1 Minor.

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.

On October 13, 2006, about 1512 Alaska daylight time, a wheel-equipped Cessna 207 airplane, N7336U, sustained substantial damage when it collided with the edge of a river embankment during the landing approach at the Tuntutuliak Airport, Tuntutuliak, Alaska. The airplane was being operated as a visual flight rules (VFR) cross-country non-scheduled cargo flight under Title 14, CFR Part 135, when the accident occurred. The airplane was operated by Flight Alaska Inc., d.b.a. Yute Air Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska. The commercial certificated pilot, the sole occupant, received minor injuries. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed in the area of the accident. VFR company flight following procedures were in effect. The flight originated at the Bethel Airport, Bethel, Alaska, about 1443.

During a telephone conversation with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge (IIC), on October 16, the director of operations for the operator reported that he interviewed several witnesses to the accident, and learned that the pilot was attempting to land on runway 20 at Tuntutuliak. The gravel surface runway is 1,772 long and 28 feet wide. The approach end of the runway is located at the edge of a river. The director of operations said the weather conditions in the area had been good VFR, but as the pilot was attempting to land, rain and mist moved over the area, reducing the visibility to about 1/4 mile. The airplane collided with the river embankment as the pilot was on his fourth landing attempt. The airplane received structural damage to the landing gear, fuselage and wings, and came to rest about 40 degrees to the left of the runway. The director of operations indicated that within 30 minutes of the accident, the weather conditions were once again VFR

3

OK, since noone has started a discussion, other than insults by this Thomas character and an off-topic list of Cessna accidents, I want to kick off an on-topic discussion here:

Why did the pilot not activate the BRS chute?

I see two potential (mutually exclusive) possibilities:

  • “I’m not gonna wreck my plane by pulling the chute, I’m gonna live through this, like I always have”
  • Once the plane was iced up, it went into an uncontrollable high-speed dive that very quickly (remember a SR22 is slick, iced up even more slick) exceeded the permissible BRS activation speed

Comments?

-Greg

P.S. Thomas, if you don’t have to post anything constructive, just insults, then shut up. I’m hanging out on this message board because I’m INTERESTED in the Cirrus, not because I hate it.

4

Robert,

Don’t be so blunt. “cessnaowner” self elected himself/herself to driveby posts on the guest side whenever he/she hears of a Cirrus accident.

Here is a screenshot of “cessnaowner” history of posts…

These web forums benefit pilots when we can discuss cause and decision making skills. Most of all the GA plane accidents would boil down to pilot skills…Cessna and Cirrus alike. “cessnaowner” has never shown an interest to contribute to the discussion. Don’t expect him or her to do it now.

My thoughts go to those that have perished in any aviation tragedy.

For those that are interested… I know there is always valuable discourse on the membership side of the COPA forums. I hope to see newbies there.

1-230411-cessna.JPG
1-230411-cessna.JPG864×417 86.8 KB

5

I definitely detect Cirrus envy here----kinda like what we Yankee & Ohio State fans get all the time!! [;)] Thats OK.

6

OK, we’re repeating history here … PLEASE don’t feed the trolls!

7

Look, buster, I only post these accident reports here because invariably I’m the first one get around to it (except for the SR20 crash in NYC).

I don’t think Cessnas or Pipers are better than Cirruses - to be honest, if the pre-IPO stocks I hold in a startup company work out better than expected during the IPO I MIGHT buy a SR20, instead of, say, a C182 Skylane.

Again: I don’t have a hidden agenda, I don’t think Cirruses are more accident-prone than Cessnas, but I don’t agree with casting a cone of silence over Cirrus accidents on this Cirrus message board. Why? Because we all might learn something from these accidents.

Peace,

Greg

8

Having been on the receiving end of many of these “shoot the messenger” posts I see the Church of Cirrus is still in session and in fine voice.

I remember being lambasted over, among other things, pointing out, in response to a query, that (among it’s many advantages) there were some disadvantages to having a castering nosewheel. Well, a few accidents and an AD or two later I guess I may have had a point, eh guys?

9

In reply to:

Look, buster,

I’ll have to check, but I think you have join COPA to be entitled to call a member “buster.”

Jim Knollenberg SR20 1281 N814

10

In reply to:

I only post these accident reports here because invariably I’m the first one get around to it

Actually, invariably, Cirrus accidents are reported and discussed on the Member side within an hour or less of them occurring.

If one is seriously interested in Cirrus safety issues, the best way to get reliable information is to join COPA and read the posts on the member side.

11

In reply to:

Look, buster, I only post these accident reports here because invariably I’m the first one get around to it (except for the SR20 crash in NYC).
I don’t think Cessnas or Pipers are better than Cirruses - to be honest, if the pre-IPO stocks I hold in a startup company work out better than expected during the IPO I MIGHT buy a SR20, instead of, say, a C182 Skylane.
Again: I don’t have a hidden agenda, I don’t think Cirruses are more accident-prone than Cessnas, but I don’t agree with casting a cone of silence over Cirrus accidents on this Cirrus message board. Why? Because we all might learn something from these accidents.
Peace,
Greg

Greg,

We might all learn something from your post if it develops into a legitimate thread. I suggest you at least stay around for the dialog. My observation has been that you’ve posted a handful of headlines.

An incident seems to hit the membership side of this website before the media even knows about it.

I’d love to see more dialog on the guest side. However, the non members never seem to stick around for a discussion.

Peace to You as Well,

buster :slight_smile:

12

Look, “buster”,

Even though I’m basically retired, my time has value.

Why would I bother following/adding to multiple threads on the same subject just because there are those for whom $50 is apparently a major hurdle.

I wouldn’t - so other than this minute I just spent, my work here is done…

…Buster!

13

In reply to:

I’ll have to check, but I think you have join COPA to be entitled to call a member “buster.”
Jim Knollenberg SR20 1281 N814

Absolutely correct! Even then, the term is to be used with considerable discretion.

14

Joe,

Mine is not a “shoot the messenger” post. Open his Kremmerling incident thread and you will see that “cessnaowner” was non-responsive to my cordial and supportive response. Click on any of “cessnaowners” posts and you will see that he has no intention of discussion, contributing, or learning more about GA with his posts.

I am “holier than thou” for one simple reason:

I understand there is a open forum of legitimate discourse on everything from kneeboards to VLJs on the membership side. Accidents, ADs, and all types of plane types are discussed and debated. I understand the membership side does not contain any schill user accounts. I understand that the membership side is for those who are serious about discussing GA on a web forum.

I’m inviting you to attend church if you are serious about having a discussion.[:)]

15

Joe:
I am not sure to what you are referring to but there is no AD for anything related to the castering nosewheel. Please clarify?

16

Even then, the term (Buster) is to be used with considerable discretion.
[/quote]

unless you would adopt it as your nickname. in which case you would be immortalized as long as our mortality lasts.

17

Well, in the name of converting these long rants into a topical discussion, I read at least three or four news articles when the Cirrus crashed into a building in New York that quoted owners as saying it was the “safest airplane” in the world. These quotes did not appear to be officially sanctioned by the company. Nevertheless, nothing was said about the actual fatal accident history. This most recent accident underscores to me that the parachute system is no defense against stupid pilot tricks, like flying into ice…or flying into a canyon wall, or a building or a thunderstorm. The relatively few attempts I’ve seen to put statistics on the fatal accident rates suggest the Cirrus in fact has a meaningfully higher fatal rate/hour flown, than the rest of the GA fleet (maybe 50% higher or more).

As many on this board have maintained, the cause of the fatal accidents in Cirruses appears overwhelmingly attributable to inexperienced pilots, bad decisionmaking, or perhaps a belief that the plane is simply more capable of punching through ice and thunderstorms than any other plane. When I was a lower time pilot, I was very drawn to the prospect of the then-under-development, whole plane parachute. As I accumulated experience, I have come to believe that for me, personally, there are almost no realistic (meaningful risk) circumstances when I would use one. Putting two and two together, I have come to believe that the Cirrus is a high performance airplane, like any other high performance plane, and it deserves only to be flown by a seasoned, experienced pilot; but, that this parachute system attracts many of the wrong type of pilots for such a high performance plane. The result is the higher fatality rate.

I’m not saying that a good, very cautious lower time pilot can’t handle a Cirrus perfectly well, provided he’s committed to behaving like a real pilot. But it’s those low time pilots who hop in a Cirrus and try to drive it like a car (I’ve seen them revving the engine at startup on the ramp)…doing idiotic things like riding the brakes, because he never learned how to manage a castering nosewheel…those types ought to be discouraged not only from buying Cirruses, but from even getting in an airplane.

And by the way…regarding the silly posts about the importance of a steerable nosewheel…jimminycricket…of course a castering wheel is better. You can actually turn the plane in a decent amount of space. And infinitely better than a castering nosewheel, is NO nosewheel at all. Get thee a tailwheel; then, you’ll have a proper airplane! :wink: And regards, deicing? I think you are nuts to put that on a fourplace plane…I can’t think of any reason for a small plane ever to fly into ice long enough to pick up more than a trace. I’ve been flying all over the country for years and managed to always avoid it. I wouldn’t trust my hide to a de-ice system, anymore than a parachute. The only thing a de-ice system will practically accomplish is to encourage the dumber pilots to fly into risky conditions, and thereby encourage more fatalities.

Ok folks…that’s my two cents…Now, in anticipation of the inevitable ad hominim attacks, I haven’t spent $50 to become a member, because this board is $50 cheaper, and just as much fun for my purposes; I have previously disclosed my full identity in other posts; and I don’t plan to own a Cirrus until it gets a proper tailwheel.

18

Well, Tom, I’ve been on the members side and I found it no more hospitable to even mild critics than the open forum is.

19

It stands to reason that a castering nosewheel aircraft will be, at least at the margin, harder on the brakes than a similar aircraft with nosewheel steering. For pilots with excellent taxiing technique this will be less of a problem than for novice pilots (or perhaps big-footed ones).

From AVweb 10/19/06
FAA Finalizes Cirrus Brake-Fix AD
By Mary Grady, Newswriter, Editor
The FAA has finalized its airworthiness directive (AD) on some Cirrus brakes. Cirrus Design argued that the best fix to avoid overheated brakes (or brake fires) is to taxi more slowly. The FAA agreed but said it will nonetheless also require maintenance and hardware upgrades as proposed. The AD applies to some 2,135 Cirrus SR20 and SR22 airplanes. It requires replacement of O-ring seals or brake calipers as well as modifications to landing-gear wheel fairings to allow for temperature monitoring, plus changes to the Pilot’s Operating Handbook. The AD results from several reports of the castering-nosewheel airplanes experiencing main gear brake fires and two airplanes losing directional control, the FAA says. Cirrus has said it will provide warranty credit for some of the work. The AD takes effect on Nov. 17. (Emphasis mine.)

20

Tom,

whether I choose to participate further in a thread that I started, is really my own business. There’s no rule that I have to. I did see the question you directed at me in the Kemmerling (sp?) thread, but as far as I recall, when I saw it, it was past midnight and I didn’t have the energy to reply, but went to bed instead.
Of course, the next day, I forgot to reply.

Again, let me re-iterate that my goal is not to bash the Cirrus, in fact it would be my favorite airplane to buy if I had the money (*), but to kick off a discussion that might benefit all of us, including me, and might even save someone’s life.

(*) Well, technically, I do, but I do not want to access these accounts right now for various reasons.

One recurring question is, of course, why do people not activate the BRS more often, i.e. why do we see fatal accidents at all with a Cirrus? OK, in some cases, the plane might be too low for the chute to function, but in most other cases it seems like a no-brainer to pull the chute if the situation gets out of hand.

Peace,

Greg