Cirrus pilots are dangerous
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or the bit of cloud he punches through actually is hiding a CB
The latest Garmin and Avidyne AP's have straight and level buttons and will recover even if initially upside down.
Last edited by VH-XXX; 3rd Jun 2012 at 12:27.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that is a very good idea. Adding to the whole issue we are talking about in this here thread, however technology wise, very clever.
The SR22T also has protection against hypoxia when above a certain altitude. It monitors the comms and if they haven't been used in awhile the system flashes a message which the pilot must acknowledge with a button push. If the message isn't acknowledged then the plane descends to 10,000'. A very seasoned pilot died after he passed out at 25,000'. The plane flew at that altitude till it ran out of fuel. Hence the new system.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the message isn't acknowledged then the plane descends to 10,000'.
A very seasoned pilot died after he passed out at 25,000'. The plane flew at that altitude till it ran out of fuel. Hence the new system.
(Don't take those as negative comments, am just sayin')
Last edited by VH-XXX; 3rd Jun 2012 at 13:28.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Straight into a moutain range one wouldn't be hoping for!
The descent to 10,000 wouldn't have helped him then!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had his plane had the system the descent would have begun shortly after he passed out. Why wouldn't that have helped? I guess I'm missing something.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But if we know how to use an autopilot, one hopes our training would have surpassed a level where we need to be saved by it? Maybe a state of the art G1000 with GFC700 could recover from a spin? I doubt it in a Cirrus. Other auto pilots might just disengage and say something like 'you fix it'. Some seem to actually make matters worse as they chase rates of climb or descent and turns that are inappropriate and/or unsustainable.
Where stall/spin accidents seem to happen is where an AP, spin training or a BRS system have little value. When less than 500' above the ground the main thing is to avoid it in the first place.
The GFC700 is also good if hand flying and you get disoriented in the clouds. I don't think getting disoriented is unique to Cirrus. However, you have to use it. Buying fancy stuff but not mastering it is a waste of money.
It's just that people talk about the need for hand flying kills (I agree) but I also think you need to know how to use everything available. For all of the fear of a bad AP I have seen more deaths caused by not using the AP than by a failed AP.
Last edited by paulp; 3rd Jun 2012 at 23:16.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a nice video on using automation properly vs. getting overwhelmed by it. It is an old American Airlines training film.
Last edited by paulp; 3rd Jun 2012 at 23:23.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shifting the problem
Admittedly the A5 doesn't have the performance of the Cirrus but the Cirrus can't land on water. This is their way of solving the problem: ICON Aircraft | ICON A5 Spin Resistance Safety Milestone Video
It does beg the question , what would happen when an A5 pilot moves to a conventional, spin capable aircraft and tries the same thing?
It does beg the question , what would happen when an A5 pilot moves to a conventional, spin capable aircraft and tries the same thing?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: new zealand
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all this, the basic cause of many of the accidents is the pilot attitude (much like the FTDK in it's day etc.).
My very limited expeience in a SR20 as a passenger consisted of a long cross country flight. What was noticable was that at most aerodromes (and to a degree enroute) the pilot spent a lot of the time monitoring the panels (gps, traffic, engines) which is good, except that it was at the expense of a proper lookout.
The only join, approach and landing where I felt the pilot was demonstrating actual piloting skill was at an airfield not in the GPS database. At that airfield the lookout, speed and height control were good, and the pattern and aircraft flown correctly and as part of a plan. To me the pilot felt like he was ahead of the aircraft, not sitting on the back seat.
Many of the people who buy the 'best' aircraft, buy with the anticipation that the gismo's will save them (though in the case above the pilot didn't remove the safety pin from the chute deployment system before flight 'in case it got knocked' so that was poor logic).
Unfortunately also is the fact (supposition on my part) that particularly when these aircraft first came out, the people who bought them were highly motivated, successful individuals, who generally don't like 'no' as an answer and were often their own boss. People like this have a hard time taking instruction and following direction. Of course if they wern't how they were, they wouldn't be sucessful in the first place, but equally it makes them more confident (or pigheaded) in the aircraft, and can lead them into situations beyond their actual skill level.
My very limited expeience in a SR20 as a passenger consisted of a long cross country flight. What was noticable was that at most aerodromes (and to a degree enroute) the pilot spent a lot of the time monitoring the panels (gps, traffic, engines) which is good, except that it was at the expense of a proper lookout.
The only join, approach and landing where I felt the pilot was demonstrating actual piloting skill was at an airfield not in the GPS database. At that airfield the lookout, speed and height control were good, and the pattern and aircraft flown correctly and as part of a plan. To me the pilot felt like he was ahead of the aircraft, not sitting on the back seat.
Many of the people who buy the 'best' aircraft, buy with the anticipation that the gismo's will save them (though in the case above the pilot didn't remove the safety pin from the chute deployment system before flight 'in case it got knocked' so that was poor logic).
Unfortunately also is the fact (supposition on my part) that particularly when these aircraft first came out, the people who bought them were highly motivated, successful individuals, who generally don't like 'no' as an answer and were often their own boss. People like this have a hard time taking instruction and following direction. Of course if they wern't how they were, they wouldn't be sucessful in the first place, but equally it makes them more confident (or pigheaded) in the aircraft, and can lead them into situations beyond their actual skill level.
Last edited by scroogee; 4th Jun 2012 at 01:24.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is an interesting read to see why the SR2X's are crashing.
Of the ones that I have personally heard of, it's interesting to think about the possible cause.
- Bouncing down the runway and ploughing off the end
- Flatspotting 2 tyres and running off the end at high DA
- Bouncing down the runway and prop striking
- Engine failure x 2 (Chute didn't work properly)
- Unable to maintain altitude at high DA smacking into a mountain
- Tail strike x 2
- Stalling when turning onto final, too slow, too much bank
- Overspeed when inadvertant non-VMC
Most of those don't sound too different to your average Cessna, but it appears that the US are leading us in the rate of Cirrus write-offs.
Of the ones that I have personally heard of, it's interesting to think about the possible cause.
- Bouncing down the runway and ploughing off the end
- Flatspotting 2 tyres and running off the end at high DA
- Bouncing down the runway and prop striking
- Engine failure x 2 (Chute didn't work properly)
- Unable to maintain altitude at high DA smacking into a mountain
- Tail strike x 2
- Stalling when turning onto final, too slow, too much bank
- Overspeed when inadvertant non-VMC
Most of those don't sound too different to your average Cessna, but it appears that the US are leading us in the rate of Cirrus write-offs.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've long maintained there is a false sense of security that comes with the ballistic recovery systems the Cirrus offers. The following excerpt from the NTSB report suggests the pilot had a lot of trust in his "get out of gaol/jail card". Fortunately he and the passenger survived, but there have been events where the BRS didn't help.
Full narrative
The pilot told the NTSB investigator during an interview that he informed the controller that he was instrument-qualified because he was getting concerned. His wife was six months pregnant and he feared they would end up in the water. The pilot stated he was struggling to keep the airplane level; he was in instrument conditions in a black hole with out a visible horizon or ambient light. The pilot further stated, "I became spatially disoriented and pulled the chute." When the pilot was asked if there was anything mechanically wrong with the airplane or the flight instruments, the pilot stated no. Review of information on file with the FAA Airman's Certification Division, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, revealed the pilot was issued a private pilot certificate on April 12, 2004, with ratings for airplane single engine land. The pilot did not have an instrument rating. The pilot's last biennial flight review was conducted on March 25, 2007, in the SR20. The pilot held a third-class medical issued on April 24, 2007, with the restriction "must wear corrective lenses." The pilot indicated on his application for the third-class medical certificate he has 500 total flight hours
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stationair8
Mock the 172 guy some more if you like.
I've had 2 VFR into IMC incidents. Only one scared the bejesus out of me...and that was the one without auto.
Having seen both sides of the coin, i'd rather do the 180 turn to fly back out using an autopilot than hand fly it. Many more arguments can be put forward to justify the cost of installing an auto. But if you are not one scared by marginal Wx, using it correctly may just save your A when it all turns to crap.
As a point, there was an SR-22(citation needed on actual model) parked up at Locksley Field that had a VFR into IMC incident whilst on autopilot a few years back. The pilot instead of dialing up the 180 heading to fly and let the computer manage it chose to do a disconnect and hand fly the reciprocal. That very quickly turned to crap, and the airframe was spiral dived. FORTUNATLEY the PIC realised what was going on and rectified the situation, so no ghecko's were injured. Unfortunatley, his decision to hand fly it rather than tell the computer what to do wrote the airframe off...less than 500 hrs TT.
Autopilots have a place, and we've all flown with/without them. If you can afford to fit one to your aeroplane, and want it, then go for it. You won't see me lining up to can you for it.
I've had 2 VFR into IMC incidents. Only one scared the bejesus out of me...and that was the one without auto.
Having seen both sides of the coin, i'd rather do the 180 turn to fly back out using an autopilot than hand fly it. Many more arguments can be put forward to justify the cost of installing an auto. But if you are not one scared by marginal Wx, using it correctly may just save your A when it all turns to crap.
As a point, there was an SR-22(citation needed on actual model) parked up at Locksley Field that had a VFR into IMC incident whilst on autopilot a few years back. The pilot instead of dialing up the 180 heading to fly and let the computer manage it chose to do a disconnect and hand fly the reciprocal. That very quickly turned to crap, and the airframe was spiral dived. FORTUNATLEY the PIC realised what was going on and rectified the situation, so no ghecko's were injured. Unfortunatley, his decision to hand fly it rather than tell the computer what to do wrote the airframe off...less than 500 hrs TT.
Autopilots have a place, and we've all flown with/without them. If you can afford to fit one to your aeroplane, and want it, then go for it. You won't see me lining up to can you for it.
Was this not the same 'logic' when VOR's in the USA became 'commonplace'?
Previously, some pilots would not venture in 'poor' weather, then, with the advent of the VOR, some pilots reckoned they 'knew where they were'...so pushed the envelope a little further, and, lo and behold, a few 'overdue' aircraft were finally located right under the flight track between two VOR's or in close proximity to one of them....
Previously, some pilots would not venture in 'poor' weather, then, with the advent of the VOR, some pilots reckoned they 'knew where they were'...so pushed the envelope a little further, and, lo and behold, a few 'overdue' aircraft were finally located right under the flight track between two VOR's or in close proximity to one of them....
PAULP has put the problem well, I was rather oversimplifying the conclusions of a study by the US AOPA Air Safety Foundation. With modern glass cockpits and autopilots, the general problem extends beyond the various Cirrus.
The anticipated "safety dividend" of the all singing, all dancing glass ( and they really are great, I love synthetic vision) has proved to be somewhat elusive.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a point, there was an SR-22(citation needed on actual model) parked up at Locksley Field that had a VFR into IMC incident whilst on autopilot a few years back. The pilot instead of dialing up the 180 heading to fly and let the computer manage it chose to do a disconnect and hand fly the reciprocal. That very quickly turned to crap, and the airframe was spiral dived. FORTUNATLEY the PIC realised what was going on and rectified the situation, so no ghecko's were injured. Unfortunatley, his decision to hand fly it rather than tell the computer what to do wrote the airframe off...less than 500 hrs TT.
Indeed this did happen, the aircraft exceeded VNE (supposedly only to 215 or so knots - VNE 195 from memory) the aircraft was written off from an insurance perspective, it was advertised for tender, a submission was entered for $20k, the tender was successful and the successful tenderer flew the aircraft home (legally) and is still flying it around. (it was at Temora at Easter)
The magical $20,000 Cirrus SR22 !
Sum total of damage = a creased flap skin.
This is a true story in every way so help me god !
PS: this is relevant because this particular aircraft was per-Avidyne and was fitted with a 6-pack of analogues.
Last edited by VH-XXX; 7th Jun 2012 at 12:15.
The anticipated "safety dividend" of the all singing, all dancing glass ( and they really are great, I love synthetic vision) has proved to be somewhat elusive.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The USAF bought a fleet of SR20 aircraft for training.
Here are my thoughts on these.
The Cirrus gear is springy with small tires. The G3 increased prop clearance and the SR22T added a shock to the nose gear so Cirrus has certainly worked to address prop strikes and pilot induced oscillation. Many people land too fast. The max gross is 3400 lbs and you are almost 80 knots over the numbers. This is a huge difference from a 172 even though the tires are similar in size. Hit hard and you can get a pilot induced oscillation. It's a great landing plane when properly done but I sometimes envy the gear on my friend's Bonanza when I see the shocks and large tires on the mains.
The small tires and 3400 max gross also means respecting needed runway length at high DA airports. Nothing new here. Ask the people in Leadville, CO about what they see when people come there. They'll talk about the low land Mooney and Bonanza pilots too. Small tires and high weight mean you need more runway. It isn't a 182.
You have to be careful on zero flap landings. It actually takes a large nose up pitch to tail strike. However, this is easier than some think when new to the plane because the sight picture out the front makes the plane appear nose low when transitioning from many other aircraft. You hear less about prop strikes and tail strikes than you used to. Higher tail and prop clearance, tail "bumper", and nose shock have probably helped some but I suspect the biggest deal is that now a high percentage of pilots are high time in type.
I know of one chute failure and that resulted in an AD. Since then I don't know of any.
The high DA comment must involve a 20. The SR20 is relatively fast and comfortable but at 200 hp it doesn't have much more raw power than a 172sp. The 22 will climb to 18K' but be winded when it gets there. The 22T will happily go to 25K'. The biggest difference going from a 20 to a 22 is climb performance. Because the 20 is fairly fast and very comfortable I suspect some people forget that it isn't a raw power plane. I was in Brisbane talking to a lady about an SR20 I saw take off. I commented that it had done a shallow climb. She said she was the instructor in that plane and that it was a Vy climb. At that time I hadn't flown one. Over the next couple of days I got some time in one and saw what she meant. The plane felt like an SR22 until I went to climb.
Speed management is an acquired Cirrus skill. I would love speed brakes. To descend into an airport it is often best to pull power, nose up and get flaps in. If you get disoriented and in a dive I can imagine speed building fast. On newer planes this is time to use the straight and level button. On older ones it may be chute time if seriously disoriented and in the clouds. There's a point where it is better to let others tell you how their superior skills would have allowed them to pull out and save the plane than be dead with people saying "Why didn't he pull?"
I saved what I consider the most interesting one for last and that is the base to final stall and variants of it. I think this is a real issue and I suspect it is directly do to pattern speed combined with moving from a trainer like a 172 or Warrior. In training I was taught to do nice rectangular patterns. I was also taught to not be too far from the runway lest something happen such as an engine out. But the downwind to base turn in a Cirrus happens at about 100 knots. That means that it takes more room. If you level out for the straight base segment it is easy to be where you now need a sharp base to final turn and this is at about 90 knots. That means it is easier to get focused on the final approach line and over bank trying to make this turn with the result being an accelerated stall. I don't see this as so much a Cirrus issue as a trainer to high performance aircraft transition issue.
- Bouncing down the runway and ploughing off the end
- Flatspotting 2 tyres and running off the end at high DA
- Bouncing down the runway and prop striking
- Engine failure x 2 (Chute didn't work properly)
- Unable to maintain altitude at high DA smacking into a mountain
- Tail strike x 2
- Stalling when turning onto final, too slow, too much bank
- Overspeed when inadvertant non-VMC
- Flatspotting 2 tyres and running off the end at high DA
- Bouncing down the runway and prop striking
- Engine failure x 2 (Chute didn't work properly)
- Unable to maintain altitude at high DA smacking into a mountain
- Tail strike x 2
- Stalling when turning onto final, too slow, too much bank
- Overspeed when inadvertant non-VMC
The Cirrus gear is springy with small tires. The G3 increased prop clearance and the SR22T added a shock to the nose gear so Cirrus has certainly worked to address prop strikes and pilot induced oscillation. Many people land too fast. The max gross is 3400 lbs and you are almost 80 knots over the numbers. This is a huge difference from a 172 even though the tires are similar in size. Hit hard and you can get a pilot induced oscillation. It's a great landing plane when properly done but I sometimes envy the gear on my friend's Bonanza when I see the shocks and large tires on the mains.
The small tires and 3400 max gross also means respecting needed runway length at high DA airports. Nothing new here. Ask the people in Leadville, CO about what they see when people come there. They'll talk about the low land Mooney and Bonanza pilots too. Small tires and high weight mean you need more runway. It isn't a 182.
You have to be careful on zero flap landings. It actually takes a large nose up pitch to tail strike. However, this is easier than some think when new to the plane because the sight picture out the front makes the plane appear nose low when transitioning from many other aircraft. You hear less about prop strikes and tail strikes than you used to. Higher tail and prop clearance, tail "bumper", and nose shock have probably helped some but I suspect the biggest deal is that now a high percentage of pilots are high time in type.
I know of one chute failure and that resulted in an AD. Since then I don't know of any.
The high DA comment must involve a 20. The SR20 is relatively fast and comfortable but at 200 hp it doesn't have much more raw power than a 172sp. The 22 will climb to 18K' but be winded when it gets there. The 22T will happily go to 25K'. The biggest difference going from a 20 to a 22 is climb performance. Because the 20 is fairly fast and very comfortable I suspect some people forget that it isn't a raw power plane. I was in Brisbane talking to a lady about an SR20 I saw take off. I commented that it had done a shallow climb. She said she was the instructor in that plane and that it was a Vy climb. At that time I hadn't flown one. Over the next couple of days I got some time in one and saw what she meant. The plane felt like an SR22 until I went to climb.
Speed management is an acquired Cirrus skill. I would love speed brakes. To descend into an airport it is often best to pull power, nose up and get flaps in. If you get disoriented and in a dive I can imagine speed building fast. On newer planes this is time to use the straight and level button. On older ones it may be chute time if seriously disoriented and in the clouds. There's a point where it is better to let others tell you how their superior skills would have allowed them to pull out and save the plane than be dead with people saying "Why didn't he pull?"
I saved what I consider the most interesting one for last and that is the base to final stall and variants of it. I think this is a real issue and I suspect it is directly do to pattern speed combined with moving from a trainer like a 172 or Warrior. In training I was taught to do nice rectangular patterns. I was also taught to not be too far from the runway lest something happen such as an engine out. But the downwind to base turn in a Cirrus happens at about 100 knots. That means that it takes more room. If you level out for the straight base segment it is easy to be where you now need a sharp base to final turn and this is at about 90 knots. That means it is easier to get focused on the final approach line and over bank trying to make this turn with the result being an accelerated stall. I don't see this as so much a Cirrus issue as a trainer to high performance aircraft transition issue.
Last edited by paulp; 7th Jun 2012 at 18:09.