June 2011 Cirrus & 182 Fatals @ Asturias Spain

[007helicopter]

I did not see this previously reported but in June 2011 there were 2 fatal crashes at Asturias in Spain in pretty Solid IMC. 3 Polish registered Planes were touring and appears knowlingly took of into bad weather. What appears to be two seperate fatal crashes at the same airport.

I post because it is such a classic bad example of Intentional VFR flight into IMC, there were many outs after the bad decision was made but none taken and it makes sad reading as they all do.

Inevitably this may well cause people to criticise "Cirrus Pilots" blah blah but I think they were pretty determined to do it in whatever type.

They had fuel and options to go elsewhere.

The comprehensive Spanish report has just been published here.
http://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyres/1AE85360-A737-46BF-83AC-D3E5CFC1093C/113818/2011_015_A_ENG.pdf

[peterh337]

There are many accidents which just don't make sense.

A bloke from "my" hangar embedded his Seneca and his family in a mountain in France, on a flight which should have been "impossible" had he got the weather. A friend of mine asked him if he really wants to fly in such crap wx; his reply was "I always fly". Last words anybody heard from him prior to departure.

[B2N2]

According to the report the pilot entered IMC without being rated for it.
That flight should never have happenend.
Travelling in a group doesn't necessarily make it safer.
On the contratry it can make it harder to make the "safe" decision because of group pressure or perceived pressure form the "more experienced leader"
.

[Pace]

Really what can you say? Very sad! Interesting that they did deploy the chute but too low and that the chute should not be deployed below 930 feet agl.
But these pilots were flying in conditions they were not capable of flying in and that is the bottom line!
All the Gizmos and fancy displays cannot save you from a basic lack of flying skills in the conditions you are in.
Maybe in this situation those very displays lured them into thinking they could get to the runway in very poor conditions partial VFR when only a proper IFR approach and ILS could do that safely?
Very sad for their loved ones and all concerned

Pace

[007helicopter]

A bloke from "my" hangar embedded his Seneca and his family in a mountain in France, on a flight which should have been "impossible" had he got the weather. A friend of mine asked him if he really wants to fly in such crap wx; his reply was "I always fly". Last words anybody heard from him prior to departure.

He was the boss of a friend of mine.

flying in Mountains certainly adds an extreme further dimension on top of the weather.

Really what can you say? Very sad! Interesting that they did deploy the chute but too low and that the chute should not be deployed below 930 feet agl.

While it is certainly not reliable below 1000 ft there have been several successful outcomes in the 400+ range. The key in my opinion is the decision before it is all to late, but that is easy in hindsight.

All the Gizmos and fancy displays cannot save you from a basic lack of flying skills in the conditions you are in.
Maybe in this situation those very displays lured them into thinking they could get to the runway in very poor conditions partial VFR when only a proper IFR approach and ILS could do that safely?

Flying skills aside as he was a VFR pilot I believe it was blatant shocking decision making, I do not know if the technology lured him in, he may have been proficient or totally incompetent with the avionics, we do not know. Also no idea what kit his flying buddy had in the C182 but he was also lured in as was the 3rd guy who ended up going else where.

It would be interesting to find the C182 report

The Cessna 182 report on the same trip

http://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyres/A7BAD835-8BDD-4D96-A468-8A58D863427D/113820/2011_018_A_ENG.pdf

Very interesting the 2 letters at the end from the Polish authorities criticising the Spanish controllers

[Fuji Abound]

I am definitely not recommending it, but I suspect a VFR only pilot with the kit on a Cirrus or other well fitted IFR aircraft with autopilot could complete a flight in IMC. The "problem" is maintaining situational awareness while perhaps the flight plan changes due to weather or air traffic, or there is a need to think about and set up the approach. DIY approaches potentially dangerous at the best of times could cause real problems for a VFR pilot. These are huge dangers for anyone believing the kit alone is sufficient, notwithstanding that the autopilot might fail.

[007helicopter]

I am definitely not recommending it, but I suspect a VFR only pilot with the kit on a Cirrus or other well fitted IFR aircraft with autopilot could complete a flight in IMC

Other than the rather tricky bit of landing.

[Katamarino]

A shame that the Polish, unlike the Spanish, did not get their letters checked by someone with English Language Proficiency...

[Pace]

007H

To complete a flight in IMC they would have to have Instrument abilities and the ability to lock onto an ILS and fly it!
Had they done that or asked for vectors then the outcome would more than likely have been ok.
What appears to have occurred is an attempt to make a visual approach in conditions which were far from visual.
More than likely the fancy displays would have encouraged them to find the runway!

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

As I said earlier if you are really up to speed with the Avidyne, the 430s and the autopilot you could do this flight without touching the side stick other than in the last hundred feet but you need to be totally on the ball without anything "going wrong".

Failures aside I suspect the other biggest challenge for the inexperienced is speed control. It is so easy to find you are flying the IAP and the final approach too fast, ending high and hot with nothing left but a go around. You are then causing yourself all sorts of problems. If you don't know the power settings you probably stand a far better chance deploying one stage of flaps way early and bringing the speed right back. The aircraft will pretty much fly itself then. If you get to 700 feet and it all goes horribly wrong pull the chute. :) On the other hand maybe just pull the chute in the first place if you find yourself in IMC without instrument training and no quick and obvious way out. :) :)

[Pace]

If you get to 700 feet and it all goes horribly wrong pull the chute. On the other hand maybe just pull the chute in the first place if you find yourself in IMC without instrument training and no quick and obvious way out.

Fuji

In this situation the pulling the chute caused their deaths as they pulled the chute too low.
In the accident report 930 feet AGL is given as the minimum for chute deployment so 700 feet you are likely to kill yourself? or at least that should be considered!

Pace

[007helicopter]

Fuji

In this situation the pulling the chute caused their deaths as they pulled the chute too low.
In the accident report 930 feet AGL is given as the minimum for chute deployment so 700 feet you are likely to kill yourself.

Pace

I agree for these guys they were to low for the chute, I guess they pulled it after hitting trees and that really is to late.

For me these guys in Cessna and Cirrus should never have been near the airport, never been attempting to land and had perfectly airworthy aircraft to find better conditions.

For the record some info on low pulls I copy and pasted from a similar current discussion on COPA

~50' AGL -- Deltona, FL, 2 fatalities -- after 10-turn spin, parachute was activated just prior to ground impact
~50' AGL -- Porter, TX, 1 serious injury -- during attempted go-around attempt after first impact with a tree, pilot activated CAPS, which had no effect on impact sequence
~50' AGL -- Asturias, Spain, 2 fatalities -- data shows pilot activated CAPS immediately prior to impact with trees during VFR-in-IMC approach to airport
~50' AGL -- Carrollton, TX, 1 fatality, 2 serious -- witnesses describe parachute activation immediately prior to ground impact, wing struck ground, broke off and impacted fuselage killing rear passenger
90-120' AGL -- Sydney, Australia, 2 serious -- infamous anomalous rocket trajectory where pilot attempted to land on motorway then decided to land on hill beside motorway then decided to activate CAPS
~200' AGL -- Turriaco, Italy, 1 serious, 3 uninjured -- fuel exhaustion after diversion from missed approach, pilot glided towards airport but pulled prior to impacting trees
~300' AGL -- New Orleans, LA, 1 uninjured -- pilot descended under clouds over Lake Ponchartrain and pulled, impacted water, then sat on empennage for 40 minutes awaiting rescue in dense fog
336' AGL -- Idabel, OK, 2 uninjured -- pilot traded airspeed for altitude and pulled as airspeed dropped below 80 knots
441' AGL -- Hamilton Island, Australia, 1 serious -- pilot knew he was going to pull as he attempted to circumnavigate an island at 600 feet but lost time and altitude when engine finally quit
528' AGL -- Indianapolis, IN, 1 fatality, 3 serious -- right-seat passenger activated CAPS while in a 3-1/2 turn spin just 4 seconds prior to impact

[007helicopter]

On the other hand maybe just pull the chute in the first place if you find yourself in IMC without instrument training and no quick and obvious way out.

I think once you have genuinely lost control then the chute is the right option, what is clear these guys had many options, plenty of fuel, obvious ways out yet still persisted on trying to make an approach which was there downfall.

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

Yes of course, I was being a bit flippant. ;)

Without instrument training you are best off pulling the chute - pure and simple.

If you have spent some time on the Avidyne simulator and flying the real thing you might chance your luck without full instrument training - who knows.

If you are not visual by 1,000 feet you have got to consider pulling the chute.

.. .. .. but if you are not visual at 1,000 feet and the autopilot is taking you down the G/S, the aircraft is stable, the speed is under control, I guess you might go a bit further if the reported base suggests you will become visual shortly, but I agree you are then all but committing to the landing. If anything goes wrong (given you dont have instrument training) all the evidence is that you are now in a life or death situation.

Standard Cirrus training - inadvertent IMC without instrument training - pull the chute.

[007helicopter]

Standard Cirrus training - inadvertent IMC without instrument training - pull the chute.

Assume you still are being flippant, would not want to confuse anyone here:=

[007helicopter]

A better outcome from CAPS pull NO 38 - This was yesterday near Holbrook, Arizona.

Pilot walks away from morning plane crash near Pinetop - White Mountain Independent: Latest News (http://www.wmicentral.com/news/latest_news/pilot-walks-away-from-morning-plane-crash-near-pinetop/article_704a2e64-3026-11e2-8ede-001a4bcf887a.html)

[Coolhand78]

Quote:
Standard Cirrus training - inadvertent IMC without instrument training - pull the chute.
Assume you still are being flippant, would not want to confuse anyone hereI would say inadvertent IMC without IFR, autopilot ON, HDG, ALT.
And it reduces just to move the heading bug 180º back. So easy.

In this accident scenario I think you only have two options. The easy one, the one that I've just mentioned. The difficult or more dangerous one, if you're well IMC trained, although you don't have an IFR ticket, study the ILS app plate and do it with autopilot ON. If nothing goes wrong, the A/C will do the approach for you. But then you have to have a really good reason to do that instead the 180º turn back and divert to an airport that you know is in VMC. Thay had Santander in VMC at less than 1h.

[Pace]

Fuji

I would agree with that but if Cirrus say a minimum of 930 feet then 1000 agl should be the marker point.
These guys fell out of control under an unopened chute.
Would they have survived a controlled crash into trees or terrain? We will never know!

Pace

[Jonzarno]

Just a minor correction: I believe the 930 ft figure relates to the altitude lost in a one turn spin before the chute is fully deployed.

Although I certainly wouldn't advocate doing this deliberately, there have been successful CAPS pulls as low as 400 ft.

[Coolhand78]

The 930ft figure is to guarantee survival in chute deployments with any attitude and up to 135 kias. The figure of 400ft is used in take off, when speed is under 100 kias and the aircraft is in normal attitude. With this constraints 400ft are enough. In fact, during Cirrus Standarized Training, you are instructed to use the chute during EFATO if above 400'.

[007helicopter]

Fuji

I would agree with that but if Cirrus say a minimum of 930 feet then 1000 agl should be the marker point.


In Fact No minimum altitude for deployment has been set by Cirrus or BRS.

[Pace]

007H

I took that from the accident investigation which says the info comes from the manual?
133kts and 930 feet is quoted for minimum deployment of the chute.
Fuji maybe right that in a climb at 100kts the chute will successfully deploy but we need guidance!
The reason for that is that once deployed there is no more control over the aircraft and it will fall verically to the ground killing all on board.
In a low situation at least controlled flight into trees or terrain gives a chance of survival.
Hence more detailed guidance is needed for low level deployment

pace

[007helicopter]

Pace from POH - my Bold

Deployment Altitude


No minimum altitude for deployment has been set. This is because the
actual altitude loss during a particular deployment depends upon the
airplane’s airspeed, altitude and attitude at deployment as well as
other environmental factors. In all cases, however, the chances of a
successful deployment increase with altitude. As a guideline, the
demonstrated altitude loss from entry into a one-turn spin until under a
stabilized parachute is 920 feet. Altitude loss from level flight
deployments has been demonstrated at less than 400 feet. With these
numbers in mind it might be useful to keep 2,000 feet AGL in mind as a
cut-off decision altitude. Above 2,000 feet, there would normally be
time to systematically assess and address the aircraft emergency.
Below 2,000 feet, the decision to activate the CAPS has to come
almost immediately in order to maximize the possibility of successful
deployment. At any altitude, once the CAPS is determined to be the
only alternative available for saving the aircraft occupants, deploy the
system without delay

[007helicopter]

The reason for that is that once deployed there is no more control over the aircraft and it will fall verically to the ground killing all on board.

Or saving their lives (maybe)

When it deploys there is quite a violent nose down attitude and then rocking until settles level, so altitude is pretty key for a reasonable chance of a successful outcome but as posted there have been several in the 400ft range

Not looking to open the whole chute debate again but I think the Polish guys in Spain at the point they pulled had very small chances with either option, their fate was pretty much sealed

[007helicopter]

The report says they pulled the chute AFTER they hit the trees. All the talk about deployment heights is a bit irrelevant taken in that context.

I agree - we have digressed, they were DOA which ever option they took at that point as opposed to minutes before having good outs and sensible options, this was a series of very bad decisions.

We will probably never know if ignorance or over confidence was the main factor.

[belowradar]

Looks like poor decision making

Risky Shift

No IMC training

And in the case of the Cirrus possibly lack of proper training