Cessna 162 Skycatcher Crashes

[VH-XXX]

This will be interesting!


Cessna Skycatcher
BUTLER COUNTY, Kansas, September 18, 2008 � A small plane has crashed in Butler Co.

Witnesses say they saw a man parachute from the experimental plane just east of Douglas, KS around 11:30 Thursday morning.
The man is expected to be OK.
The plane is the new Cessna Skycatcher, which is yet to be released.
KSN has a crew headed to the scene and will have updates as soon as they are available.



http://www.avweb.com/newspics/cessna-skycatcher-prototype_in-flight.jpgFederal investigators are on their way to Douglass, Kansas to investigate the crash of a Cessna Skycatcher LSA prototype Thursday. The pilot of the test aircraft was able to parachute to safety and was reportedly taken to hospital with minor injuries.


Cessna media relations personnel were unable to immediately respond to AVweb's request for more detailed information, but KAKE Television (http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/28606459.html) is reporting the aircraft crashed into a treeline near the boundary of Butler and Cowley Counties. The television station is quoting witnesses as saying they heard a loud pop and then saw sparks and the plane spiraling down. The pilot landed in a field about 400 yards from the aircraft. The TV station quoted a Cessna spokesman as saying the crash aircraft had about 150 hours on it.


The prototype first flew on March 8, and Cessna is planning on delivering the first customer aircraft in the first half of 2009. What the crash does to that schedule is unclear. There are close to 1,000 orders for the aircraft, which will be built in China and reassembled in three plants in the U.S.

[Peter Fanelli]

Is it too early in the program to claim "Typical Chinese ****!"

[Jabawocky]

PF :D

I think this one will have been typical Yanky Sh!t. :}

J:ok:

[Capt Wally]

who in their right mind would want to manuafacture a plane? especially a new type in this some times crazy litigatious (chk spelling)world & with the likes pf us PPRUNE'ers ready to shoot 'em down if they don't fall down themselves in the first place!
What engine powers this new bird?


CW

[sms777]

Have to put that in my engine failure checklist.

" If engine pops and backfires, evacuate aircraft "

:E

[sleemanj]

What engine powers this new bird?

Cessna 162 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162#Engine)

[Capt Wally]

Ok tnxs 'sle' for that link, I guess I could have searched myself but there's always someone in here that's up to date with all the lattest:ok:

The old O200, leart fly behind one of those reliable old donks!

Will be interested to see why the pilot jumped ship, sounds like the balistic chute option ought not to be just that, an option!:E


CW

[BPH63]

could have been the oxygen bottle popping its cork :} but I'm not going to speculate.....

[dghob]

Quote: "could have been the oxygen bottle popping its cork but I'm not going to speculate....."

Uh oh - another opening for a Qantas maintenance connection.

[VH-XXX]

There is talk elsewhere that it was up to spin testing in the test schedule. Not the first one to be lost. Even GA lost an Airvan in testing.

[the wizard of auz]

Might have been in the student pilot mishandling stage of the test program.
Being a chinese aircraft, I think the procedure is to let go and close your eyes (so i am told by many instructors from CSFC) could be the American pilot lost something in the translation and bailed instead of closing eyes. :E:}

[Lasiorhinus]

Sounds like he did "let go" of the whole aircraft, and probably closed his eyes on the ride down.:D

[gaunty]

Ummmmmm er that's why Cessna and other manufacturers have a seriously testing test program. That's right,, to find out what the aircraft will do to those idiot punters who will one day buy it and, as they do, push the envelope, get hurt and then sue them.
So why are we surprised that in the search for an idiot proof aircraft they don't lose one or two.:sad:

[Chadzat]

Kudos to the test pilots of new aircraft I say! They have bigger you-know-whats than me thats for sure! I wouldn't like to go to work every day not knowing what the f:mad: the aircraft is going to do in some circumstances- and having to purposely push it there until it breaks away!!

I know they have extensive computer modelling these days but imagine what it would have been like in the paper-era!

[djpil]

The Airvan was going beyond what they needed for normal category. I wonder if the Cessna was also - it'd be more useful if it was approved for intentional spinning.
I've seen a number of aircraft go through a development program and end up with a bigger fin (inc ventrals etc) and/or rudder. The 150 got a bigger rudder at one stage too. Any bets on whether the 162 will get a bigger rudder?

[Stationair8]

Cessna have lost a number of aircraft and pilots during the test flying stage. In the book Cessna Wings of the World, the author was a test pilot for Cessna and he talks about the loss of a Cessna C340 and the pilot.
Didn't Cessna lose a C441 during certification or just after certification with a tailplane failure. That resulted in the C441 being grounded for a while after the FAA pulled its certification.

[RadioSaigon]

...in the search for an idiot proof aircraft...

If anyone ever does manage to build one, it will not be long before nature makes a better idiot...

[VH-XXX]

Interesting post Gaunty, reads like you think that they would expect to lose one which would surely not be the intention given the bad publicity and if it was being tested for spinning, it would normally have a spin-chute fitted.

Interesting the test pilot was 70 years old. Old and bold.


It would be interesting if the pilot of the Airvan that was lost could post on here to tell us what happened. The story that I heard was that CASA supposedly made them limit control movements, so much so, that exiting a spin became difficult.

HD, can you post something for us, we might learn something?

[Deaf]

Doesn't seem to be on the web anymore but there was an article (read sales pitch for the testing mob) about the airvan.

It suggested there was a spin chute deployed but the cable was too long and the a/c continued spinning.

With the C162 w/b or aerodynamics may be a factor in fitting a spin chute.

[Led Zep]

I read somewhere that the airvan exited the spin after the pilot had jumped. :\

[VH-XXX]

That was also my understanding, that it exiteded the spin itself only to be watched by the parachuting pilot above or below.

[gaunty]

VH-XXX

No, they don't PLAN to lose one but they sure do want to find out if the design has any rattlesnakes lurking in it. Most people who are bitten by one don't see it before they step on it.

So whilst they try to design them out prior, they push all parts of the envelope to see what may lurk there, occasionally and it seems so in this case they do.

If they can't design out whatever it was, then they will "fix" it, using one of the many "fixes" out of the "fix" tool box. A quiet walk around a ramp full of aircraft from 2 seat trainers to exec jets with someone who knows both what he's talking about and what to look for, can be very instructive.

Having built probably 70% of the commercial aircraft now flying I suspect they know a thing or two about how to design an aircraft that granny can fly up to and including the Columbus.

Believe it or not I have heard more pilots??:rolleyes: than I care to, tell me that in any event most Cessna's aren't "real" aircraft because they are so, in relative terms, idiot proof. Go figure.:ugh:

Seems to me the regulators need to make provision for the pilot? who insists on showing the world that he can do the equivalent of defusing an IED whilst standing on one leg in a hammock.


PS: Oh and BTW the Cessna 303 Crusader is the closest any piston manufacturer has ever got to the pilot proof piston twin. Short of an exhibition of superior dumbosity all of the things that would normally kill you in a piston twin were designed out.:ok: The aircraft was stillborn in the great late 80's liability fiasco.

[bushy]

The PAC 750 test aircraft in NZ had two large water drums and an electric pump fitted in the fuselage,so they could vary the C of G in flight. They told me they had spun it more than 100 times during the testing.

In the days before concorde, the english were researching delta wings etc, and they built a small jet powered delta wing research aircraft to gather data. They actually built three of them. Each one crashed and killed it's pilot.
The project was considered a sucess!!!!

The idiot proof aircraft has not yet been built.
And the bull**** proof pilot has not arrived yet either.

[VH-XXX]

Jabiru J160c certification testing included over 120 spins.....

[Jenna Talia]

And the bull**** proof pilot has not arrived yet either

Bushy, that one really made my day :D

JT

[tail wheel]

bushy

In the days before concorde, the english were researching delta wings etc, and they built a small jet powered delta wing research aircraft to gather data. They actually built three of them. Each one crashed and killed it's pilot.
The project was considered a sucess!!!!

I don't think that is correct. At least one Avro 707 ended up in Australia, Melbourne I think from memory? Recent photos of the two remaining Avro 707s are on Airlines Net (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=Avro%20707&distinct_entry=true).

[BEACH KING]

"Believe it or not I have heard more pilots??:rolleyes: than I care to, tell me that in any event most Cessna's aren't "real" aircraft because they are so, in relative terms, idiot proof. Go figure.:ugh:"

That would explain why you like them so much Gaunty:O

Happy Birthday from a few days ago too.

[bushy]

As usual you have lots of interesting facts. And you can certainly see where the Vulcan came from when you look at those pictures.

But there was another one and they did all crash and kill their pilots. There are none left to go in a museum.

History remembers what society wants it to remember.

[TBM-Legend]

AVRO 707

Avro 707 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_707)

[Jabawocky]

XXX

Had you been looking for this video link to post along with your earlier post about J160's?

YouTube - Teste Jabiru / Jabiru Test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jWo-5f8GY&feature=related)

[grumpyoldgeek]

That was also my understanding, that it exiteded the spin itself only to be watched by the parachuting pilot above or below.

That might be consistent with what I read, that they were also testing aft C.G. limits. Pilot bails, C.G. changes, airplane recovers by itself.

[404 Titan]

Reminds me many moons ago teaching a CPL student spin recovery in a C150 Aerobat, the one with the smaller tail. After climbing to 5000 ft and entering a spin the bloody thing didn’t want to come out of it. We were both near six feet tall requiring the seats to be in the aft position but still within CG limits. Upon realising our situation we both lent forward and the thing snapped out, 1000 feet below the hard deck. I was very wary of that bloody aircraft after that.

[skycatcher]

404 Titan

Can't remember their names but there was a school in the US teaching spin recovery techniques.

The theory was "recovery" is more likely to be exacerbated by ham fisted pushing and shoving than resolved.

Answer, just let go and it will, if it is within C of G, recover all on its own within a turn or so.

I tried it and it worked every time.

It was widely reported and written up in "Flying" and made a lot of common sense.

[SootyS]

Skycatcher,

The Mueller-Beggs spin recovery method gets a mention in CAAP 155-1(0) Aerobatics. It does however have a number of disclaimers including the fact that it will not work in many types of aircraft.

7.24.5 The procedure is mentioned in this CAAP for information purposes. It is NOT being recommended as a spin recovery procedure. However it may possibly be useful if a pilot becomes disoriented.

Mueller-Beggs Spin Recovery:
• Close throttle;
• Let go of the control column;
• Full rudder opposite to rotation (yaw);
• When rotation stops - centralise rudder;
• Re-grasp control column, roll wings level and recover to level flight.

[VH-XXX]

The latest from Cessna is that it entered an un-recoverable spin and it was the non-conforming prototype model.

Perhaps some changes were made. The aircraft was found pretty much in-tact where it "crashed."

Witnesses allegedly saw sparks coming from the aircraft as it descended.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

the thing snapped out, 1000 feet below the hard deck

Wow! So how long did it take you to climb back out of the hole?

Dr :E

[the wizard of auz]

Maybe it was a "Not so hard deck" or a "Mushy deck" :ooh:
I remember two incidents I have had with spinning aircraft that had me with very big eyes.
I was aerobatting (well, as far as you can) a 152 Scareobat once and was in the process of recovering from a spin. It wouldn't stop rotating regardless of how much rudder I applied, and it seemed I didn't have full travel of the rudder in one direction (the direction I required). I ended up breaking the stall and spiraling out.
When I landed (after changing my undies) I had a poke about down the tail end to see if I could find anything obviously amiss. I found a Biro poking out of the tail cone, aligning itself with the side of the rudder and basically making an effective stopper. I stomped on that rudder peddle pretty hard and managed to dent the rudder, but it wasn't enough to get it into a position to stop the rotation.
Second incident was a Robin R2160. Fuel tank behind where you sit. flicked and flopped around fine until it was time to return. Using a pretty aggressive stall spin to loose height, it wound up a bit faster and a little higher in the nose than I was used to seeing. when I tried to recover, I stopped it rotating, but it took several more turns than normal, but stayed stalled. very flat and scary when I had full down elevator in. after a bit of rocking back and forth with the elevator, it eventually went nose down so hard I whacked my bean on the canopy. scared the ****e out of me and the pax.
Turns out there was a bit more fuel in the tank than was recommended for spinning. fuel moves to the back of the tank while rotating and moved the already marginal CoG to the rear...... and scaring the crap outta the pilot.
I learned all about reading the POH from that. :eek:

[OpsNormal]

....so hard I whacked my bean on the canopy...

Now that answers a lot of things.... :E:};)

G'day mate!:ok:

[VH-XXX]

FTDK, if you watched Top Gun you'd realise that the hard-deck is a theoretical lower limit of a sequence of, in this case aerobatics. If they were operating at 5,000ft the hard deck might be 3,000ft. A sensible way to operate. My hard deck is 50ft agl.

[Flying Binghi]

My hard deck is 50ft agl.

Wimp ......:E

[Howard Hughes]

My hard deck is 50ft agl.
Geezus, your cojones must drag on the ground as you make each pass!:eek:

[Jabawocky]

FTDK, if you watched Top Gun you'd realise that the hard-deck is a theoretical lower limit of a sequence of, in this case aerobatics. If they were operating at 5,000ft the hard deck might be 3,000ft. A sensible way to operate. My hard deck is 50ft agl.


And VH-XXX's aerobatic training consisted of 16 serious sessions of that movie Top Gun! :}

J:E

[404 Titan]

skycatcher

My recovery from spins in the C150A and C152A was relax backpressure and opposite rudder. No ham fisted flying. The 152 was very docile where as the 150 definitely had a bight. The one thing I remember distinctly (this happened in 1994) was the spin on this occasion looked much flatter than usual. After the event I accurately calculated our CofG and it was just in the rear limit. I have also heard of a similar thing happenning to Cape York Air a few years later in their C150A.

Forky, as mentioned a hard deck in Aero’s is a theoretical level that you don’t go below. Mine was 3000.

[skycatcher]

404 Titan

I don't recall suggesting that you were ham fisted, I was merely making the general observation and I'm sure there would be a few instructors who would agree, that an overenthusiastic recovery can put you right back from whence you were.

I suspect the aircraft you were flying probably had a colorful career and may not have passed a rigging check. I am very respectful, seriously nervous actually, in fact I avoid it where at all possible flying "club" aircraft. I have seen the results of unreported "frights" where a previous pilot has found him/herself and the aircraft beyond their own personal and aircraft envelopes. I have even watched heart in mouth a trainer with solo pilot execute a manoeuvre (out of control actually) that should have been fatal and must certainly have stressed the aircraft (it did) but for dumb luck got away with it. Back to base, park the aircraft pay the bill and scarper he does. Operator could not prove a thing and almost got sued for suggesting the culprit was the culprit.

Its a tribute to the robust design and construction of these fully certified aircraft that they keep all but the most foolish out of strife.

[the wizard of auz]

Ops
It certainly does. Used to be a secret until I forgot and mentioned it. :D
Hows the death pencil working for ya? I hear rumors another shift is imminent?
hows the rickster? is she who wears the pants still torturing his little feet?. :ok:

[Sunfish]

Tailwheel:

At least one Avro 707 ended up in Australia, Melbourne I think from memory?

...And it spent years in a back yard in Williamstown, no more than three blocks from here. Your memory is excellent. It's now on display at Point Cook.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Skycatcher like 404, and I suspect a few other ex Instructors, I had a similar experience teaching spins in a C150 back in the mid 80s. Entered at 4000' and recovered under 500', and probably closer to 200', agl.

I tried letting everything go as soon as it was obvious the normal recovery method wasn't working..I sat there for 3 turns waiting for it to recover. It didn't and everything I could think of after that didn't work either...I tried every combination of aileron/power/elevator and rudder, holding each for a couple of turns...and then something I was told never to do 'worked'. Perhaps I leaned forward as I slammed the control wheel to the fwd stop and that is what actually broke the stall. I'll certainly never know for sure.

My student had actually been signed out for solo spinning, by me, some weeks before and I had showed him the 'let everything go' method then. We were only doing a spin this day because he wanted to do one for fun. As the wing dropped he applied out spin aileron which may have aggravated the spin but I had corrected that before we were half way around the first turn and he released the controls so I held it in for a few more turns before applying opposite rudder and easing the stick forward. It just spun faster and faster and faster - you'd be amazed how fast the little Cessna spins when you get up around 15 turns. Years before when I was a Student just signed out for solo spins I read in the POH 'The spin characteristic changes after 6 turns' and wondered how it changed - so the next solo trip to the training area I held it in a spin for 8 turns. It just spun faster but still recovered in the manner 152s are rightly famous for. I handed the aircraft to the engineers after we landed and they found no fault. I never received a definative answer as to what happened that day.

For a long time after the thought of my student spinning into the ground waiting for it to recover itself because I told him it would sent a shudder down my spine.

In fact the student just thought I was showing him a long spin...he didn't realise how much **** we had been in until I handed over to him as we climbed away from the ground and he noticed I was shaking. "Whats the matter?" I pointed at the altimeter and we were still under 1000' in an area that was around 300-500' amsl.

As a funny aside he rang me at home a fews days later to thank me for saving his life. "Sorry mate, I was saving mine - you just happened to be there to see it":rolleyes:

Meuller - Beggs is not a 100% money back guarantee.

[OpsNormal]

Wiz, PM sent.:ok:

[djpil]

About 20 years ago the FAA issued a bulletin or alert to flight instructors about spin and recovery characteristics of Cessnas. The same information was in Flight International magazine of October 1978.

Some extracts relevant to recent posts on Cessna 150/152 here:

“…. Some pilots of modern aeroplanes say that ‘if you let go of everything, it’ll come out on its own.’ Using some spectacular film and figures, he showed the result of doing this in ... the 152. …
… company’s recommended recovery technique …
(1) Check that ailerons are central and throttle is in idle position.
(2) Apply and hold full rudder, opposite to the direction of rotation.
(3) Just after the rudder reaches the stop, move the control wheel briskly forward far enough to break the stall.
(… full down elevator may be required at aft c.g. loadings.)
(4) Hold these control inputs until rotation stops. …

The same information is in Kershner's book, The Basic Aerobatic Manual - essential reading for anyone instructing spins and/or aerobatics in the Cessna.

Beggs confirmed Kershner's tests of the Beggs-Mueller method on the Cessna 150 - it doesn't work in some spin modes to the left. Refer his article in the October 1985 issue of Sport Aerobatics and his comments on the above method - full forward yoke used in that spin where Beggs-Mueller doesn't work.

It’s a lot easier these days to obtain factual information (as well as rubbish) on the internet. Happy to send more details in pdf to anyone.

[Chimbu chuckles]

djpil now THAT is interesting.

20 odd years ago would be 2+ years after my episode.

While neither myself or the student were overweight (at the time:ok: ) we were both over 6' tall and had the seats all the way back. We were in a left spin. I don't remember it being/or becoming particularly flat - certainly not compared to how flat the Traumahawk spun.

I had been taught NEVER to move the stick briskly forward all the way to the down elevator stop because you risked bunting the aircraft past the vertical and then having to pull back through the vertical (and risk structural failure). This actually happened on the day but I pushed then rolled right way up before pulling out into a climb. I am certain that had I pulled back through the vertical we would have hit the ground. The other thing I am certain of is that aerobatics and spinning was very much 'my thing' in those days and that was also a factor in our survival.

I believe the generally benign spin characteristics (99% of the time anyway) of the Cessna 150/152 series aircraft had lulled the entire training industry into a false sense of security. The reason the Traumahawk flies and spins as it does is because when Piper asked the industry what they wanted in a primary trainer they said "Not a C152" which was viewed as too benign - as in it, the 152, was difficult to actually force into a 'proper' spin and more inclined to spiral dive.

Several times over the intervening decades I have run into information like your post that fills in another piece of what may have happened that day.

Thanks for that!!:ok:

[Brian Abraham]

Bit of info on spinning the 150/152 here.
SPIN RECOVERY AND SPIN TRAINING (http://www.ozaeros.flyer.co.uk/spin/beard.htm)

[BPH63]

looks as though the "pops and sparks" was the BRS deploying (and failing) (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=1072d1c7-a6aa-4188-966b-23fe6e2549ae&Dynamic=1&Range=NOW&FromDate=09%2F24%2F2008&ToDate=09%2F26%2F2008&Category=%2Findex.cfm)

[the wizard of auz]

sounds as though the pilot was having a particularly bad day.

[Brian Abraham]

From Avweb today

SkyCatcher Crash Update

The test pilot for the Cessna 162 SkyCatcher LSA prototype that crashed last week was spin-testing the airplane and put it into a cross-controlled, power-on stall, Cessna spokesman Doug Oliver told AVweb this week. "He got into a flat spin and couldn't recover," Oliver said. The airplane, which was one of several used in the test program, remained intact until it hit the ground. The spin testing started at about 10,000 feet, and the pilot bailed out safely at about 5,000 feet above the ground. The kind of testing it was undergoing was beyond what is required for the airplane's intended ASTM light sport aircraft certification, Oliver said. He added that the accident is still under investigation but he doesn't expect the findings will result in any plans to modify the design. The airplane was equipped with a BRS ballistic recovery parachute, which was activated by the test pilot but failed to deploy.

Larry Williams, CEO of BRS, told AVweb this week it is too early to determine exactly why the chute didn't work. "It looks to me that the parameters were pretty exceptional," he said. "It was an unusual situation." He added that BRS is working with Cessna and the NTSB to determine what happened, and he might have more information later in the week. Williams added that the BRS design has proven to be robust across a wide range of situations, but if this event shows that the design could be improved to increase its range of effectiveness, his team is ready and willing to learn and make changes. Oliver, of Cessna, noted that the BRS system on the accident aircraft was a standard chute and was not a specially designed spin chute, which is sometimes used in flight testing.

[Aerohooligan]

I heard that the C150/152 crashed three or four times during its flight test program. Anyone know how true that might be?

Personally, I hate the skycatcher. It looks too much like a Jabiru and it's made of fibreglass, glue and the prayers of a thousand engineers. That said, I have to applaud Cessna for finally getting off their fat, business jet-focused collective backsides and offering a C150/152 replacement from a proven and reliable manufacturer.

Recently got an up close look at a Boomerang and a Liberty XL. When I talked to the Liberty marketing bloke he was talking it up as a basic trainer, a 152/Thawk reaplacement. Naturally, the first question I asked was 'what does it spin like?' His response (somewhat quizzically): 'Oh, you can't spin it...it's not approved.' What is the f*$#ing point of a basic trainer you're not allowed to spin?! :ugh:

I think the Boomerang is over-priced for what it is. $120k or whatever they're asking I feel is too much for something that looks like the cardboard box aeroplanes I used to make in the backyard as a kid, with an avionics and interior fitout that looks like so many spares orphaned from a LAME's hangar...but at least you can spin it. You CAN spin it, right...? :suspect:

So in short, to Cessna: I don't like your new plane, but it's a sh#tload better than some of the other stuff out there. Thankyou for that. :ok:

[balsa model]

According to Avweb, Cessna has redesigned the tail to counter this type of accident.

Cessna Revises SkyCatcher Design (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/CessnaRevisesSkyCatcherDesign_199670-1.html)

Good on you Cessna for taking it seriously :ok:

Now about the oh sh*t parachute...

Personally, I hate the skycatcher... it's made of fibreglass...
I guess that you'll be pleased to learn that it's mostly old fashioned sheet metal. Most people I know are actually critical of this choice but understand that this is what many flight schools want.

[bushy]

I would never be brave enough to spin a Cessna 150. The rudder on those things was so light it looked as if it was made of alfoil.

[Arnold E]

I had a 150F which was the first of the swept tail Cessnas. Now They reckon that the previous models, with the straight tail recovered better from a spin then the "F" and after models. I had converted mine to a taildragger and the conversion prevented ( legal ) spins. Let's say that the spin recovery of the "F" was likely to raise the blood pressure. I never tried an "E" or ealier but maybe someone has and can make comment.:ok:

[First_Principal]

Hmmm, rather a 150 than a Terrorhawk :eek:

Can't say it really floats my boat :yuk: but I've spun a 150/152 a few times and really don't see the tail as the weakest link (that's me!). I'm not unpleased to hear the 162 is mostly ally, perhaps I'm old-fashioned but it's something I understand & see as more easily repairable than a composite machine. I've had to do the odd little bit of panel-beating to the wee Cessna's before, typical hangar rash & small collisions that in the case of a composite machine would have been much more serious...

FP.

[Arnold E]

I did my power training in a Tomatohawk, and spun it several times and didnt think much of it (Iwas a glider driver) until one of my instructors did the spin and told me to look out the back at the tail, now that was sacrey. I cant remember spinning a Tomatohawk after that.:eek:

[First_Principal]

look out the back at the tail, now that was sacrey.

Exactly why my comment. Having seen the cracks that can develop in the rear end of one of these things, and the mods put out for the fin, it reinforces just why I prefer the Cessna. The 150's had some problems with rudder stops & spin recovery (ie. they wouldn't because they jammed) as I recall, but the aerodynamics or strength of the fin were never called into question. I sincerely hope the 162 is as good in this area as the 150.

Incidentaly the repair to the traumahawk, being aluminium, is relatively straight-forward if a little painful (painful particularly for the poor bugger inside the rear fuse holding the rivet dolly!). I'm not so sure this would be the case for a composite craft, or that the problem/crack would appear so benignly.

FP.

[nick2007]

I think the Boomerang is over-priced for what it is. $120k or whatever they're asking I feel is too much for something that looks like the cardboard box aeroplanes I used to make in the backyard as a kid...

I'm not a great fan of the Boomerang, but really, is $120k too much to pay for a modern FAR23 aircraft?

The only new aircraft you will find for significantly less than $100k are ultralights (and yet you imply that you don't like them?)

So what do you want? Think carefully.

[VH-XXX]

I hope they make them strong like they used to.

Wonder if the new 400 Columbia is as strong - spotted one today at Moorabbin with "N" rego doing circuits which got one hell of a beating :bored::bored::bored::bored: Was so bad I nearly called up to help them fly it even though I have never flown one before. Saw at-least 2 go-arounds.

[Arnold E]

Hmmm A boomerang for $120K I would say is an real bargain. I cant think of any new ultralight for less than $100k. My RV7 has cost $168k so far and is not yet finished (close though). Lets face it, new aircraft cost an arm and a leg and realistically are probably not worth it.:hmm::hmm:

[HarleyD]

There are New aircraft and there are NEW aircraft. Just because an aircraft has been recently manufactured does not necessarily make it new, a newly built aircraft of recent design and certification is a bird of a different colour entirely.

Most people involved in aviation around the world are not involved in design and certification and therefore lack, almost completely, a serious insight into this world. The do however seem to be the first to leap to their feet and pronounce very profoundly their personal beliefs on what exactly the manufacturer/designer has got wrong. On many occasions these suggested improvements directly conflict with the design regulations, in this instance FAR 23. unless you have been directly and intimately involved with certification and design within these regulations, you have no idea about the whys and wherefores.

Far 23 is not a document set in stone, it is regularly reviewed and amended. These amendments are directly related to knowledge gained from the long-term operation of types within this Reg , and also from NTSB and coroners recommendations. The Regs are then upgraded to include specific improvements in design/construction and testing that will improve the breed. A FAR 23 type certificate issued in the 1960,s at an early amendment is not only a very far cry from a type certificate to recent standards of amendment, but may in fact just be a sunrise certificate based on a types compliance with the preceding design standard, CAR 3, a very slim document indeed, that covers only the most basic of design and flight handling procedures. Most Cessna singles come from this background. The standards of flight control pressures, flight handling including spinning, stability, stalling and controllability, flight characteristics such as trimmablity, design criteria relating to fuel, electrical, hydraulics, powerplant installation, cooling, performance as well as things like aeroelasticity, GVT, flammability, critical component life, fatigue, redundancy, crashworthiness, dynamically tested restraint systems, HIC, and about another hundred or so items have been reviewed and upgraded, I could go on and on and on even more but I hope that you are getting the picture. An old certificated Cessna is, to this day, essentially built to standards relevant to an EH Holden ( or Vauxhaul Cresta to be even more scary) avan though it is brand new, they do not have to invest ANY money in design and compliance testing over what they did 40 years ago, they just stamp them out of the same old moulds.

To anyone that takes on the challenge of design and compliance of a new type to the current standard of FAR 23,,, good on ya, have a go. It is incredibly hard, and AMAZINGLY expensive to cover every one of over about 2500 design dot points that is required for a new TC, develop, modify and redesign, then re test all affected and related dot points , some times several times, in order to demonstrate compliance to a CASA, that you will need to train as well, and then wait for the hundreds of kilos of documentation to undergo rigorous scrutiny, or just sit on someone’s desk while they take their CPS long service leave. If you still haven’t gone broke by then, you will need to have a proper aircraft factory on hand, fully equipped with jigs tooling and fixtures, a fully fledged QA system (subject to CASA audit) and CASA production certificate ( that does not come out of a Corn Flakes packet I can assure you). You will then be confronted by snotty bograts that will compare your product to a spam can, call it ugly, tell you its not as comfy as their lazy boy recliner and then complain about the price in comparison to types that don’t come anywhere near the standards that you have done.

This country has an unenviable record of cultural cringe, we find it soo easy to denigrate any effort to ‘have a go’ (a characteristic that we seen to believe that we are good at). Instead of words of support and comfort for our own Aussie product, that is traditionally superior to the Seppo’s products due to the fact that our ‘bi-lateral’ agreement on certification mean that if they dish up any old crock in the form of a TC or STC and our brave protectors of aviation safety immediately what their stamp of approval on it without question. If however you want to go the other way, the FAA will make you do the whole lot again in triplicate, upgrade the Certifiacation basis and then make you comply ‘without exemption, exception, or issue of equivalent safety’ this is effectively a trade barrier against the rest of the world but hey, its their ball game so you better play by their rules or , bat, ball, home.

We have an excellent history of aircraft design and a miserable history of manufacture and sales. The nomad for example is loved by the overseas operators that still use them to this day. Aus is the only place where they are continually sh!t canned (especially in this forum), they will do the same job as a caravan cheaper and more efficiently AND have TWO engines, so they can actually do jobs in many instances that is not permitted in a Caravan. The Airtourer (Concrete Sparrow or even the Plastic Parrot CT4) is/was a good little bus and an excellent trainer, the Airvan is miles ahead in every known safety standard to the antique 206 and 207’s that still grind around in so-called competition. It cruises about the same speed (do not get me started on Position Error Correction, another thing that the average schlock jockey has not the slightest idea about), on the same fuel at lower maintenance costs and carrying a bigger load.

The Boomerang is a new, FAR 23 design with millions invested, do you honestly begrudge these guys a fair suck of the sauce bottle?? I say thank goodness that some one is having ago, it may not be perfect but there are many other antique sh!t boxes that is light years ahead of.

The Skycatcher went t!ts up like dozens of other aircraft have during flight testing especially with the more stringent compliance criteria of late TC certifications. Just about every single GA manufacturer has lost prototypes and have then revised/modified (or in some instances, covered up) these characteristics and gained their type approvals that they were seeking. VLA is not Far 23 by the way, not even close. The 162 will eventually arrive with a recent certification and will be all the better for it.

Before I go:

Tomahawk, there are many reasons that this aircraft is not an ideal trainer, especially regarding spinning, it is an entire thread to itself, and before all you highly experiences grade III instructors start telling me how wrong I am, you should do a spot of research about this aircraft and as to why there is less than 50% of them left flying, that alone should start to ring bells.

Nomad, how many tails actually fell production versions of this “Death Ship”? It is not as many as you might think.

Wow, my poor little fingers are all sore and worn out, and everyone has gone to sleep except for a couple of posters such as djpil and Aeromariner, and possibly John Tullamarine.

HD

[aeromariner]

I should mention that most aircraft have more than one mode of spinning and can change from one to the other.　　The one turn normal category is intended for the primary mode before things change - for instance the rate of rotation starts to pitch the aeroplane flat. The 6 turn acrobatic category certifications have a "qualitative" aspect to the evaluation process The 150 acrobat has always been suss in regards to transiting to a different mode at some indeterminate stage within the 6 turns and I can remember the CASA Test Pilot in the seventies testing one subsequent to a "complaint". He easily got it into the flat mode with the prop stopped. National test pilots school in the US has a least three modes for the chipmunk - this of course includes inverted. Remember that for the acrobatic cert it is supposed to be out by one further turn after recovery is initiated. So ..... if you are not out by 7 turns ... you are now a test pilot.

[sprocket check]

Thanks to previous posters, interesting thread now.

I do wish the Boomerang and GA boys the best of success. There should be more manufacturing in Australia.

I thought the Boomerang was more like $210,000?

There is not a lot of certification in an ultralight in comparison...

[CHAIRMAN]

Harley, you say that the US can issue stc's etc to overcome designing more up to date aircraft, thus making far23 almost a one way street for the US locals.
Nevertheless, those 40 year old US designs (in relation to training aircraft at least), have served the training industry well - the aircraft are PREDICTABLE. in terms of purchase price, operating costs, and resale.
For a training outfit to step into ANY training aircraft that cannot fulfil all 3 of the above, is a step into the unknown.
I think this is why most of the LSA (and Boomerang) have not succeeded in flying schools. NOT ONE of them can demonstrate predictable purchase price, operating cost and resale.Lets face it, operators of flying schools cannot afford to take many risks, and to integrate a new design trainer into any fleet is a big risk - some have tried and wish they hadn't.
Flying schools couldn't care less about far23 in fleet purchasing decisions, no matter how hard it is for the manufacturer to get it.
Maybe far23 is a dinosaur in the context of trainers and we all should get over it.

[Sunfish]

I have personally witnessed American "Industry protection" applied by inspectors at GE's military engine plant in Lynne, Massachusetts.

Our F404 turbine blades were continually rejected for "Blemishes" which were caused by the American inspector removing them from their individual cardboard containers and throwing them onto a pile of blades on his desk.

Then there was the other inspector who kept rejecting our T700 engine frames, that had passed every possible inspection known to man in Australia. He had a "special tool", made up by his good self and his buddies, that checked dimensions of a non existent non functional feature that did not appear at all in the specifications or drawings.

...And it takes a lot more than handing out effing Kangaroo pins to change that culture then and now.

[djpil]

and everyone has gone to sleep except for a couple of posters such as djpil and Aeromariner, and possibly John Tullamarine.
Nice bedtime reading HD - great posts HD and others. So much info I'm not sure where to start - perhaps in chronological order with the Chipmunk.
From the June 1960 Aviation Safety Digest, it had 3 spin modes - 24, 35 and 43 degrees below the horizon. All were stable spin modes. The one most commony achieved was the flattest one. The article (based on local tests by the Department as well as manufacturer's tests) noted that it "is reluctant to spin properly and it will at first of all spiral ... but if the pro-spin controls are held on a spin proper will result".
And I totally agree with Sunfish about protection of American industry but thats another subject entirely.
You'd think that Cessna would've learnt with the spin issues with the original 150 tail but new generations of engineers often repeat the mistakes of previous generations. I see that no-one took my bet of post #13 that the Skycatcher would get a bigger rudder. I note that the 162 is LSA not FAR 23 however the FAA is taking a keen interest in its certification.
Disappointing to see Alpha in receivership and the demise of the last Airtourer venture, both should've been an easier task than a new FAR 23 design/manufacturing company here - Boomerang will find it hard but I hope they succeed as with the Airvan.

[aeromariner]

probably right chairman, they should not be spun thats all. If we are going to persist with spinning, then establish it as a course at a limited number of schools where training and currency can be equated with the risk and the aircraft type. Getting your knees jammed on something while recovering is enough to take you and your aeroplane into the unknown. The check pilot or instructor and his vehicle of choice needs to be up to that and more. Sure it means the inevitable overnight bus trip for our budding and broke trainee, but an hour or two with a guy who knows his way around sub aerodynamic flight goes a long way, particularly if he removes any smartarse tendency by finishing with an inverted item. As to VLA vs FAR23, the Kansas ACD in the FAA are steadily eliminating the differences as its all in the interpretation

[HarleyD]

Wholeheartedly agree AM, just a quick call to our man Sean at NTPS and lots of people can be saved much grief, however the industry in general seems bent on failing to observe history and to repeat the same mistakes.

When PAC were developing the XL they were bent on conducting their own spin program and as I recall there were a couple of us who were very firmly of the belief that they should talk to Sean, however Muz was convinced that they knew better and would be doing it their way!

A few months later I was at Wigram and chanced upon a good fellow who had come to have a look at my plane. turns out that he was recently retires RNZAF and Muz had offered him a job as TP on the XL , including the spinning program, which had this guy fconcerned already as even at the FWD CoG case he was encountering 'issues'. He may have been more receptive than Muz because the next I heard SR was over to evaluate the XL and made some suggestions that resulted in airfame mods and a subsequent pass for the spinning compliance. the alternative to consultation in this instance may well have resulted in a ruined day for more than a few people.

I am not sure why the lessons weren't learned by Cessna in this instance, but as i have observed there are some within aircraft manufacuring companies that seem to believe that they know better than the experts and are reluctant to accept advice that can only be in their best interest in the long run. about 2 years ago i almost witnessed a disaster on a flight handling test card where the (non aerobatic) so called 'test pilot' (PPL with a couple of hundred hours but a major ego) was conducting incipient spins at 5000 agl with three others on board and no parachutes. After almost losing it in a big way he was suitably shocked but unrepentant about the sortie as he said that he "wasn't doing spins, only incipients". He was however doing them with a 100 litre lateral fuel imbalance (iin contravention to the AFM) at the aft CoG at MTOW. FAARRRKK!

Some people cannot be told, he still insists that he was in the right, even though he was a hairs breadth from a total loss whlst not even indending to spin the vehicle. a wise older company director, who is a belts and braces man went ballistic when he heard and said 'TP' is now restricted to testing radios and navaids by day.

This is the domain of experts, real experts, really real experts, and they are few and far between.

Having said that it is good to see the industry turning up some new designs and as far as the statement that "why don't we just stick with what we know and has served us so well" I can only say that you should have a good hard look at your approach to aviation safety and continued progress in GA, you "blinkered pig-ignorant phillistine" as quoted in the Monty Python Freemasons Sketch."you sit on your loathsome spotted behind squeezing blackheads and not giving a tinker's cuss for the struggling artists,,,... YOU EXCREMENT"....."er sorry about that I got a bit carried away, i hope i wasn't out of line..."

Fair skies and Tailwinds (yeah Right)

HD

[sprocket check]

Though probably a subject of another thread, but since there seem to be some wise old heads hanging around...

I have been looking at the Czech aircraft manufacturing industry:

How come a country with around half the population of Australia, a land mass less than Tassie, a socially young democracy without a long established, stable political and financial systems manages to design, manufacture and CERTIFY (to FAR 23 latest amdt) new aircraft and do so with all types from UL to ME Transports?

And all this with no resources boon to fall back on?

[Unhinged]

"a similar thing happenning to Cape York Air a few years later in their C150A"

That particular aeroplane had a reputation in the spinning department amongst the local flying community. It allegedly had an entry in the logbooks noting that it should not be spun in one particular direction as the recovery wasn't too easy. No-one I know was game to try it out.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I have spun a C150 Aerobat many times, including 6+ turns and always found it responded very quickly to the correct control inputs for recovery. In fact, in my experience you had to hold pro-spin controls or it would recover spontaneously! It would spin very nose down and wind up like crazy.

Some time later an AD came out that required a mod to the tail by way of a bracket on either side of the leading edge of the vertical fin. That gave me cause to reflect!

Also spun the later model C150s and 152 that were approved for intentional spinning - but only ever let them go around a couple of times!

I never had anything to do with Tomahawks until I found myself in NZ and decided to do an Intructors Rating. I was a little surprised to find that fully developed spins in that aircraft were the SOP at the aeroclub. Never more than a couple of turns. The aeroplane used to 'tincan' like crazy and the tail used to wobble about a bit, but nobody was ever too concerned about that. That aeroplane certainly got your attention on entry to a spin in one direction - can't remember which way - but it used to flip on its back first.

I did some of my initial IR training in the Tomahawk. The CFI at the time thought it was great sport when doing recovery from unusual attitudes to put the aircraft in a spin while I was under the hood on partial panel then say, 'your aircraft'! Every recovery from unusual attitudes that I have done for CIR renewals in the last 20 years have seems pretty tame after that!

Dr :8

[HarleyD]

For Tomahawk spinners:
According to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Owners_and_Pilots_Association) Air Safety Foundation, which published a Safety Highlight report on the Piper Tomahawk, the Piper Tomahawk has a one-third lower accident rate per flying hour than the comparable Cessna 150/152 series of two-place benchmark trainers. However, the Tomahawk has a higher rate of fatal spin accidents per flying hour. The NTSB estimated that the Tomahawk's stall/spin accident rate was three to five times that of the Cessna 150/152.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Tomahawk#cite_note-ganews1-1)
According to the NTSB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSB), the Tomahawk's wing design was modified after FAA certification tests, but was not retested.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Tomahawk#cite_note-ganews1-1) Changes included reducing the number of full wing ribs and cutting lightening holes in the main spar.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Tomahawk#cite_note-CHI94FA097-2) The aircraft's engineers told the NTSB that the changes made to the design resulted in a wing that was soft and flexible, allowing its shape to become distorted and possibly causing unpredictable behavior in stalls and spins.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Tomahawk#cite_note-CHI94FA097-2) The design engineers said that the GAW-1 airfoil required a rigid structure because it was especially sensitive to airfoil shape, and that use of a flexible surface with that airfoil would make the Tomahawk wing "a new and unknown commodity in stalls and spins."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Tomahawk#cite_note-CHI94FA097-2)
Airworthiness Directive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airworthiness_Directive) 83-14-08 issued in September 1983 mandated an additional pair of stall strips (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_strips) to be added to the inboard leading edge of the PA-38 wing to "standardize and improve the stall characteristics".[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Tomahawk#cite_note-AD83-14-08-3)


Also:

http://www.landings.com/_landings/ganflyer/jul25-1997/New-Tomahawk-Tests.html (http://www.landings.com/_landings/ganflyer/jul25-1997/New-Tomahawk-Tests.html)


HD

[aeromariner]

Well HD that is a balanced argument from the piper chaps .... lots of leg pulling to balance the leg pushing on the rudders. Ah SprocketC what a question - and so many answers, but maybe the best word is one applicable in this thread INDISCIPLINE

[YPJT]

Agree with most of what you say HarleyD.

I'd venture that the Boomerang operating at Jandakot is one of if not the busiest airframe on the strip. The punters prefer something that is a bit more substantial and has proven safety credentials. And it doesn't have to retire exhausted when the WA summer temps go above 35 degrees.

I've heard the local vocal stirrers knocking it although not one of them has flown it..(and the owner probably wouldn't let them). It's not the prettiest aeroplane, but if upside down after a forced landing I would rather be able to get out of an intact cabin than have my last thought being how pretty the hinged canopy looked when I closed it before the flight...

To those with the urban myths about tomahawks (again usually people who have never flown one) just watch the tail of any aircraft doing runups. And if you ARE daft enough to look over your shoulder while effecting a spin recovery, have a look at the tail of other types as well. Guess what, they move. It would be a worry if they didn't.

[djpil]

That 1978 Flight International article about spinning in Cessnas is online in Flight's archive:
Page 1 (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1978/1978%20-%202617.html) and page 2. (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1978/1978%20-%202618.html)

[CHAIRMAN]

Other than serious aerobatic machines, the best aircraft I have flown for spin training is the tiger moth. Easy to get into a stable spin, and a bit slower to get out of without the proper technique. Has much in the way of good basic training changed over the years, other than the obvious mechanical reliability?

[GADRIVR]

I've flown a few hours in the Boomerang.
1. It has serious range issues.
2. The airspeed figures in the flight manual are wrong...wrong wrong wrong.
3. The braking system is inadequate.
4. The basic aircraft is too heavy.
5. Finish and workmanship is poor, very amatuerish to say the least.
6. The aircraft is overpriced
7. In the flare, rudder authority disappears as does available stick back pressure.
Overall....a waste of money and I wouldn't recommend the design to anyone. Shame....was really looking forward to flying an Australian designed trainer.
So far over the last 30-40 years, only one training design has come up to the mark. The Victa.
If you think you can't tell a Kiwi anything...try telling an Australian in the aviation manufacturing arena!!!!.

[Kangaroo Court]

The Crusader!

But it only went about about 160 knots Gaunty. What a piece of crap that thing was!

[Ultralights]

was really looking forward to flying an Australian designed trainer.

cough cough, Jabiru, Cough...

[GADRIVR]

JABIRU? Again.....shouldn't be used as a trainer at all. Just a bit of weekend fun.
Not really a serious aeroplane.
Badly designed.
Badly constructed.
Cruddy ergonomics.
The list goes on.
Thats why the aircraft is not taken seriously by professional organisations...they've had their fingers burnt with it!!
Any other suggestions ladies?:ugh:

[nick2007]

Badly designed.

Hm the design has had some flaws in the past, but it has been refined somewhat. It may not be an amazingly durable aircraft, but I wouldn't say it's a bad design. It has, after all, been a rather successful product. Can't be too critical, even if it's not all-metal construction.

[GADRIVR]

Whether its composite or metal is irrelevant. Flown Grobs....love them. Flown SR-20s, love them. Flown a few Lancairs(NOT a training aircraft)....interesting!
Nope....all I'm saying is this. The Australian manufacturing scene in regards to training aircraft, has done nothing of any real note in 30 odd years. Why?

[nick2007]

It's more or less uneconomical to design/manufacture small aircraft on a small scale.
+ the engineering side of the DCA fell apart which didn't help

[the wizard of auz]

One of the reasons eagle X went to Malaysia. Not an economically viable option in Australia. I also note that the Explorer 350 (although not a trainer) went to North America........ then dwindled into oblivion.

[aeromariner]

Lycoming or Continental 1940 designed boat anchor compared to a Jabiru engine ... remember GADRIVR, the design includes the engine.

[ex_c140flyer]

Youth is such a dangerous thing. After I got my PPL at age 21 and for another five years, I flew Cessna 120s and 140s and often did spins (self-taught from reading; they weren't taught then) in them without giving it a thought. Talk about fun! Full back control wheel until the stall, then full rudder and the nose pointed down and spun like a top. Opposite full rudder (still full back control wheel) and the spin stopped, then ease the control wheel forward to fly out of the dive. I had and still have no idea whether those planes had any spin-vices. I (maybe luckily) never encountered any.

[heated ice detector]

I understand the harder it is too get an aircraft to spin, the harder it is to recover. Sorry about thread shift!

[Andy_RR]

...and again!

Cessna plane crashes in Butler County during test flight | News Updates | Wichita Eagle (http://www.kansas.com/news/breaking/story/740273.html)

[VH-XXX]

Oops. By gosh if the aircraft's parachute "deployed successfully" I'm bailing out next time based on what this looks like! Apparently the ballistic chute may have pulled it over onto its' back, however it certainly looks like it went in nose first!

http://media.kansas.com/smedia/2009/03/19/14/48-031909planecrash_mc2.embedded.prod_affiliate.80.jpg

[Jim Lawrence]

Fascinating thread.

One thing I'm not sure about is the discrepancy in reports. Some websites including Aviation Week and others cited above say the pilot bailed out after his BRS chute failed. But I think that was the first crash...also from an unrecoverable spin last year.

Many reports say he rode the airplane down.

Meanwhile the Cessna design team had approached the problem by modifying and enlarging the tail on the first production prototype out of the Shenyang, China plant...but it still got into a spin. Here's an excerpt from Cessna's official release a couple days ago:

In the most recent incident on March 19, Pelton said the aircraft was undergoing a very aggressive spin test regime - power on and cross-controlled - when it entered a spin that was not immediately recoverable. This spin test was one of more than 500 flown to date using various combinations of center-of-gravity positions, power settings, flap settings and control inputs. The pilot deployed the airframe parachute in accordance with the flight test procedure and emerged from the aircraft unhurt after it touched down.Also, according to a local Kansas newspaper, the airplane was dragged by the wind until it hit the fence in the picture posted above. Strong winds are routine in Kansas, but it begs the question whether a quick release after impact would be advisable, if not already included on the BRS systems...I don't know for sure that they aren't but haven't heard of any such thing.

Ah, the wonders of cyberspace: here's something I just found, from AvWeb:

As was the case with the first Skycatcher prototype crash, an unrecoverable spin led to the loss of the second and last flying Cessna 162 last week. The second airplane had been fitted with a larger tail as a result of the first crash. And, as in the first crash, there were complications with the parachute recovery system that led to the aircraft being wrecked, according to preliminary report (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20090319X54357&key=1) issued Tuesday by the NTSB. The report says the test pilot set up an unspecified "planned test condition" and the aircraft entered a "rapid and disorienting spin" from which the pilot couldn't recover. Unlike the previous accident, in which the ballistic parachute recovery system failed to deploy, the chute opened this time but caused further problems in the rest of the accident sequence.
According to the report, the parachute had been modified to be jettisoned by the pilot in flight. After the aircraft stabilized, the pilot tried several times to release the chute but couldn't. Possibly concerned that his actions would unpredictably cause the chute to release, he considered taking his chances with his personal parachute but had run out of altitude and elected to ride the airplane down instead of bailing out. Initially, damage to the airplane was limited mostly to the landing gear but because the pilot was unable to release the parachute on the ground, the wind caught it and the airplane was dragged more than half a mile until it caught in a fence. It ended up inverted and heavily damaged.
In hang gliding, we routinely carry a hook knife to cut away shroud lines should we ride the canopy into the water or trees, or just to cut loose from our harness in similar situations where we need to separate from our wings.

They cost about $10. Maybe someone should get one to Cessna's next SkyCatcher test pilot.