SR22 down in AZ, 3 fatalities

Guest Discussion
21

In reply to:

OK, since noone has started a discussion, other than insults by this Thomas character…

I know Thomas, he always like that :wink:

In reply to:

Why did the pilot not activate the BRS chute?

It’s too early to say. I certainly don’t want to hear that he tried and it failed. Oddly, some would like to find that it failed. A lot of pilots can’t reconcile with themselves what they really think of BRS. If it saves fewer people it’s easier to dismiss. I can see the thought process of NOT pulling. You hope you’ll recover without it, or you know your bad judgement will be revealed and a huge insurance claim will result with one tug on the handle. A Cirrus pilot should have preplanned what warrants an immediate pull and stick to it. For some that’s an engine out with no runway to land on, others it may be total loss of control.

Maybe the pilot was KO’d by the severe turbulence he reported moments before and no one else onboard knew what to do?

22

Greg:

Here’s the insulting Thomas character’s mug:

I too wonder why this accident did not result in a successful CAPS pull by the pilot. Your scenarios and other scenarios are possible. What happened?

After the accident I posted a PIREP that appears to come from the accident pilot less than 15 minutes prior to the incident:

PIREP 19:00Z 10/25/06
SGU UUA /OV LAS065068/TM 1900/FL130/TP SR22/TB SEV/IC NEG/RM ZLA CWSU. COR NO ICE SEV TURB

Maybe icing wasn’t the cause?

There are fantastic motion Cirrus simulators in Las Vegas, Atlanta, and NY. I recently took an emergency procedures course in the Las Vegas simulator and was shocked to see how I could mentally freeze in many situations. And the simulator cannot saturate me as much as a real emergency probably would. Interesting, in the sim I finally pulled CAPS after a midair with a 737 and the chute wouldn’t deploy. There was a squawk in the motion simulator.

Some on the membership side have programmed their 430’s to que up a reminder to touch the CAPS handle every 45 minutes during cruise. Others have placarded their panel with “Pull Early…Pull Often.”

We should await news to see if the CAPS system was deployed by the pilot. Then we can isolate out 1/2 of the speculation.

Best Regards,

Buster Chops

23

Greg: There is a large group of non Cirrus pilots out there who say that Cirrus owners have pulled the chute TOO often. They say they could have landed the plane without pulling the chute.
Just goes to show you that there is no right answer. If you fly a Cirrus regularly, you will find greater and greater potential uses for the chute but you try your best to avoid getting into situations where you would need it.
We cannot get into the heads of those that have died from not pulling the chute. It is not a natural instinct as this is the first airplane most of us have flown with a chute. Private pilot training does not teach a chute pull as an option.
I know when I would pull the chute. I cannot speak for others.

24

In reply to:

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?

There are a number of full-motion simulators available for Cirrus training (at VGT, in Atlanta, and Morristown NJ). We have seen time and time again that pilots become task loaded, stressed, and fixated. We have had very experienced instructors fight a (simulated) unrecoverable spin to below CAPS deployment altitude; we have seen people so stressed they lose the fine muscle control needed to remove the cover and pin.

If people have not practiced a conditioned response to go for the handle, it may never become an option. It is no surprise to me that 4 of the successful chute deployments were by active COPA members or the family members of attendees to our CPPP’s. Both on our member forums and in our training programs we emphasize practiced response to loss of control scenarios.

-Curtis Sanford
Co-Chairman, COPA Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program

25

Joe:
There is nothing wrong with the brakes or the nosewheel. I have 655 hours on my original brake pads. It is all about technique.
The Cirrus incident that produced the SB (that Cirrus then asked the FAA to issue an AD)was caused by a pilot doing a long taxi at a high engine RPM while in the taxi. He was riding the brakes the entire time leading to an overheat and a brake fire.
You do not need to do that just because you have a free castering nosewheel. The rudder authority of the Cirrus allows you to steer easily with only an occasional use of the brakes.
Try driving your car at 50 MPH with your feet on the brakes and see what happens.
I have about 2000 hours in non Cirrus airplanes. The braking technique between all of them and the Cirrus is not much different.
It is all about proper technique.

The new service bulletin helps reduce heat on the brakes for those that insist on using them too much. Cirrus asked the FAA to make the SB an AD to prevent more pilot induced brake problems.

26

In reply to:

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.

Well, as Bill Clinton might say, it all depends on what you mean by “hospitable.” Perhaps, you have some misunderstanding of how COPA members are supposed to act. Here is the mission of COPA:
The Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association (COPA) is a not-for-profit membership organization established to educate, promote the safety of and support the owners and pilots of certified aircraft manufactured by Cirrus Design Corporation, encourage ownership of these aircraft and provide social activities for its members. Additionally, COPA will promote goodwill towards the general aviation community.

I’ve been reading and posting on COPA for four years, and find the members to be welcoming of all posts, critical or agreeable, that are in line with and in furtherance of COPA’s mission. How well do you think the posting track record of “cessnaowner” as illustrated above by Mr. Mackel, meshes in with COPA’s mission?

Jim Knollenberg SR20 1281 N814

27

Maybe I am oversimplifying the answer but:
Men don’t pull the chute because. . .

Man are reluctant to acknowledge their errors.

And that can kill you.

28

In reply to:

How well do you think the posting track record of “cessnaowner” as illustrated above by Mr. Mackel, meshes in with COPA’s mission?

Jim,

I can’t speak for “cessnaowner,” but you’re welcome to read my posts and the reaction to them in the archives (if they’re still there), and judge for yourself.

Joe

29

In reply to:

I can’t speak for “cessnaowner,” but you’re welcome to read my posts . . .

Ah, but I wasn’t asking you to speak for anyone. I asked what YOU thought of the posting record of “cessnaowner” vis-a-vis the mission of COPA. I’m wondering just how much “hospitality” COPA should extend, considering COPA’s mission and the poster’s record.

Jim Knollenberg SR20 1281 N814

30

Ah, but I was just trying to be diplomatic. I have no beef with “cessnaowner” since I hardly ever post here any more and thus have no history with him (her?). The reaction to his post simply reminded me of my days as a early position holder, near charter member, and frequent poster on this board.

Like I said, read my posts and the reactions to them and judge for yourself whether the member’s side is more hospitable than the open forum.

I’m a member of many aviation forums and I find this one the most narrowminded by far. (I know, one man’s “narrowminded” is another man’s “focused.” [;)]

31

In reply to:

The Cirrus incident that produced the SB (that Cirrus then asked the FAA to issue an AD)was caused by a pilot doing a long taxi at a high engine RPM while in the taxi. He was riding the brakes the entire time leading to an overheat and a brake fire.

Joe:

As I recall in that particular NTSB report, the higher RPMs were documented by the datalogs that are recorded in the glass panel multi-function display. They were able to see that the taxiing RPM was never lower than 1500 RPM. Riding the brakes at excessive RPMs induced the fire that set this SB and consequent AD in motion. IMHO, I appreciate the AD because brakes are one of the last thing I want to neglect.

32

In reply to:

There is nothing wrong with the brakes or the nosewheel.

I never said there was anything wrong with them, just that there are drawbacks to not having nosewheel steering, one of which is that, at the margin, a castering nosewheel is harder on the brakes. And, as I said, I agree that that margin narrows with experience and widens without it. Apparently the FAA agrees, or at least that’s what AVweb said they said.

Another drawback is that, with a castering nosewheel, taxiing with a single brake failure is difficult (and dangerous), but a non-event with nosewheel steering.

These are not big issues, I agree, but they do exist.

33

In reply to:

Joe:
As I recall in that particular NTSB report, the higher RPMs were documented by the datalogs that are recorded in the glass panel multi-function display. They were able to see that the taxiing RPM was never lower than 1500 RPM. Riding the brakes at excessive RPMs induced the fire that set this SB and consequent AD in motion. IMHO, I appreciate the AD because brakes are one of the last thing I want to neglect.

In addition, they noted that his groundspeed decreased while his engine RPM did not indicating he was riding the brakes while keeping the engine pulling forward.

34

In reply to:

Ah, but I was just trying to be diplomatic. I have no beef with “cessnaowner” since I hardly ever post here any more and thus have no history with him (her?).

Similarly, I have no beef with you. Nor did I imply that you might have a beef with “cessnaowner.” However, let the record reflect that you have been critical of COPA’s openmindedness, and when twice asked to express your opinion on how openminded we SHOULD be to a non-member with the posting record of “cessnaowner”, you have twice been unresponsive to the question.

I was just trying, unsuccessfully, to determine what your standards were.

Jim Knollenberg SR20 1281 N814

35

Well, Jim, I’ll simply say your reaction is an example of what I’m talking about, and leave it at that. Out.

36

Try doing a 180 to back taxi at this strip with nosewheel steering. The nexrad image was taken half hour after I landed, I got in just before it hit.

I had a Piper Archer III with nosewheel steering. I don’t miss it and wouldn’t give up the turn radius I have now.

3-224747-wv32trip.jpg
3-224747-wv32trip.jpg800×2400 321 KB

37

In reply to:

I never said there was anything wrong with them, just that there are drawbacks to not having nosewheel steering, one of which is that, at the margin, a castering nosewheel is harder on the brakes. And, as I said, I agree that that margin narrows with experience and widens without it. Apparently the FAA agrees, or at least that’s what AVweb said they said.
Another drawback is that, with a castering nosewheel, taxiing with a single brake failure is difficult (and dangerous), but a non-event with nosewheel steering.
These are not big issues, I agree, but they do exist.

Joe,

I’m not keen to dissect your posts, but I’m pretty sure I agree with you re the castering nosewheel. Being new to it, I apparently messed up at some point and did lose some, but not all of my right brake. Pilot error no doubt. Fortunately, I discovered the issue during taxi, the plane was controllable on the ground, so I taxed over to the service center, they fixed it, and I made my tee time. Having that experience and with the Cirrus SB, talk on the forum and the AD, I’ve been more thoughtful with my taxi technique and have not had a recurrence of the issue.

Knowing what I know now, I wouldn’t trade the castering nose wheel for heaps of reasons, but you do need to operate the plane properly or you could have a problem.

As for the members forum, I’m sorry you had a bad experience. I’ve concluded that this web forum stuff is just so different than personal interaction, it just is hard to figure out sometimes. I’ve met most of the folks who one might consider surly on the board. In just about all cases, face to face they are terrific people. Who knows what they say about me though!

I don’t do alot of forums, but I have spend a little time on the AOPA board. Maybe it’s my pride of ownership, but it seems to me that Cirrus bashing is a team sport over there. No facts required to participate.

Anyhow, all the best,

Tom

38

In reply to:

Well, Jim, I’ll simply say your reaction is an example of what I’m talking about, and leave it at that. Out.

Are you Ready?..
Are you Ready?..
Let’s get it on!

Rick

39

Post deleted by gounares

40

Actually this one IS relevant. Same general region of flight and just one day earlier.

No one will accuse Cessna Pilots Association of a “cone of silence.” Moreover, no one will say “What are those Cessna pilots thinking?” or “Why are those Cessna’s dropping like flies?” Cirrus has set a new standard in the age of no personal responsibility…It must be the plane’s fault.

Both accidents are tragic. I believe the GA community knows much more detail about the causes of Cirrus accidents as opposed to any other manufacturer.
1-230649-temp.JPG