Cirrus down Gundaroo, 06/10/23
Surely you have to marvel at the range of expertise displayed here. ADS data analysis, Cirrus flight controls and stability, CAPs, icing, stall / spin behaviour and now, advanced cardiology. All that’s missing here to make this the complete cockpit conversation is taxation and investment advice.
Looking at the photos of the site, the best anyone can hope for is that the investigators get lucky enough to find a vital clue or two.
Looking at the photos of the site, the best anyone can hope for is that the investigators get lucky enough to find a vital clue or two.
The following 2 users liked this post by lucille:
and now, advanced cardiology.
Surely you have to marvel at the range of expertise displayed here. ADS data analysis, Cirrus flight controls and stability, CAPs, icing, stall / spin behaviour and now, advanced cardiology. All that’s missing here to make this the complete cockpit conversation is taxation and investment advice.
Looking at the photos of the site, the best anyone can hope for is that the investigators get lucky enough to find a vital clue or two.
Looking at the photos of the site, the best anyone can hope for is that the investigators get lucky enough to find a vital clue or two.
It must be assumed that the SR20 has some unrecoverable characteristics
refers to the fact that to recover a Cirrus from a spin, the yoke must be pushed FULL forward and not just partially; indeed, pushing full nose down was viewed as an action can be daunting for a pilot who finds themselves looking down at the ground with it spinning around them.....
I will try to make it simpler for you, FMJ:
The absence of a deployed chute is not conclusive of an absence of attempts to deploy it. There are documented instances of pilots attempting to deploy the chute but it failing to deploy properly or at all.
(Equally, the presence of a deployed chute is not conclusive of the presence of attempts to deploy it. There are documented instances of the chute deploying without human intervention.)
The absence of a deployed chute is not conclusive of an absence of attempts to deploy it. There are documented instances of pilots attempting to deploy the chute but it failing to deploy properly or at all.
(Equally, the presence of a deployed chute is not conclusive of the presence of attempts to deploy it. There are documented instances of the chute deploying without human intervention.)
1) Let's assume you're high enough and have deployed / attempted to deploy the chute. You have a couple of minutes descent in front of you. What are you going to do. You can't aviate, nor can you navigate.
In your example where the chute misfired, you said he didn't communicate. This is what you wrote:
If the base of the IMC had been granite rather than clear air in that incident, the Monday Morning Quarterbacks would be asking why the pilot didn’t transmit a mayday and pull the chute.
Your words, not mine. But he did. The report clearly stated that he had declared pulling the chute. Indeed, most pilots who deploy at an altitude higher than circuit pattern typically DO communicate. So why didn't this pilot, if he popped the chute at 9000 feet, even if it misfired / misdeployed?
2) unwanted chute deployment was always an issue that happened on the ground and this itself led to an SB..... you know that....
The following statements are unassailably correct, FMJ:
The absence of a deployed chute is not conclusive of an absence of attempts to deploy it. There are documented instances of pilots attempting to deploy the chute but it failing to deploy properly or at all.
Equally, the presence of a deployed chute is not conclusive of the presence of attempts to deploy it. There are documented instances of the chute deploying without human intervention.
I’ll add another couple:
The absence of receipt by ATC of a mayday call is not conclusive of an absence of a pilot’s attempts to make one.
The existence of a Service Bulletin is not conclusive of the carrying out of the SB, competently or at all, in the case of a particular aircraft the subject of the SB.
You can of course keep expressing opinions about the probabilities of various circumstances, but if you want to argue the correctness of the above statements you’re merely reinforcing how biased your agenda is.
On the subject of SBs, you are of course aware that there is no regulatory requirement to comply with an SB unless it is made the subject of an AD by an NAA (in this case CASA or the FAA) or the particular aircraft has an approved system of maintenance which mandates compliance with SBs. Please identify the AD issued by CASA or the FAA mandating compliance with the SB to which you referred, or quote the provision of the approved system of maintenance for MSF which mandates compliance with SBs.
Even if there is an AD mandating compliance with the SB, or there is an approved system of maintenance mandating compliance with SBs or the aircraft owner chose to comply with all SBs, that is not conclusive of the carrying out of any SB, competently or at all, in the case of MSF. And that is an unassailably correct statement.
That is why accident investigators look into the actual maintenance history of an aircraft involved in an incident and in some cases speak to the people responsible for actually carrying out the maintenance.
The absence of a deployed chute is not conclusive of an absence of attempts to deploy it. There are documented instances of pilots attempting to deploy the chute but it failing to deploy properly or at all.
Equally, the presence of a deployed chute is not conclusive of the presence of attempts to deploy it. There are documented instances of the chute deploying without human intervention.
I’ll add another couple:
The absence of receipt by ATC of a mayday call is not conclusive of an absence of a pilot’s attempts to make one.
The existence of a Service Bulletin is not conclusive of the carrying out of the SB, competently or at all, in the case of a particular aircraft the subject of the SB.
You can of course keep expressing opinions about the probabilities of various circumstances, but if you want to argue the correctness of the above statements you’re merely reinforcing how biased your agenda is.
On the subject of SBs, you are of course aware that there is no regulatory requirement to comply with an SB unless it is made the subject of an AD by an NAA (in this case CASA or the FAA) or the particular aircraft has an approved system of maintenance which mandates compliance with SBs. Please identify the AD issued by CASA or the FAA mandating compliance with the SB to which you referred, or quote the provision of the approved system of maintenance for MSF which mandates compliance with SBs.
Even if there is an AD mandating compliance with the SB, or there is an approved system of maintenance mandating compliance with SBs or the aircraft owner chose to comply with all SBs, that is not conclusive of the carrying out of any SB, competently or at all, in the case of MSF. And that is an unassailably correct statement.
That is why accident investigators look into the actual maintenance history of an aircraft involved in an incident and in some cases speak to the people responsible for actually carrying out the maintenance.
Surely you have to marvel at the range of expertise displayed here. ADS data analysis, Cirrus flight controls and stability, CAPs, icing, stall / spin behaviour and now, advanced cardiology. All that’s missing here to make this the complete cockpit conversation is taxation and investment advice.
Looking at the photos of the site, the best anyone can hope for is that the investigators get lucky enough to find a vital clue or two.
Looking at the photos of the site, the best anyone can hope for is that the investigators get lucky enough to find a vital clue or two.
That aside, the availability of the ADSB data has completely changed the landscape, it's literally a game-changer, even to the point where a flight-sim pilot could find a probable cause before the wreckage has even been located.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The following users liked this post:
Highly recommend actual spin training (obviously in a rated A/C). Did some in a Citabria during my FIR. Only had to call on it once as an instructor, but, for me, having actually done/experienced it as opposed to reading the instructions on it gave me a lot of comfort.
You may scoff over some of the comments, however there are a LOT of years of experience here. Pilots, engineers, lawyers and doctors to name a few (probably the odd accountant too). The younger gen Y's and Z's are generally on Facebook and the old-scool boomers tend to cling to forums like this one :-) In fact some of the posters may have more experience that those tasked to actually investigate the incident.
That is why accident investigators look into the actual maintenance history of an aircraft involved in an incident and in some cases speak to the people responsible for actually carrying out the maintenance.
I'll see if I can find out the information however I would imagine that it is incipient spin recovery. By the way the comment:
It must be assumed that the SR20 has some unrecoverable characteristics
refers to the fact that to recover a Cirrus from a spin, the yoke must be pushed FULL forward and not just partially; indeed, pushing full nose down was viewed as an action can be daunting for a pilot who finds themselves looking down at the ground with it spinning around them.....
It must be assumed that the SR20 has some unrecoverable characteristics
refers to the fact that to recover a Cirrus from a spin, the yoke must be pushed FULL forward and not just partially; indeed, pushing full nose down was viewed as an action can be daunting for a pilot who finds themselves looking down at the ground with it spinning around them.....
Given that there's some conjecture about the aircraft being in a flat spin - while I've never even sat in a Cirrus, on most aircraft the spin will be flat if the engine remains at high power. Is it possible that, following a pilot incapacitation with no further control inputs, the aircraft stalled with cruise/climb power, departing controlled flight into a flat spin?
How did you come to that conclusion? Looking at the graph where the altitude increases sharply and the airspeed washes off, are you saying that this could only be pilot induced? Also, do you know the cutoff limit on the Stec AP as fitted in the Gen 1 SR22? How many stalls have you conducted in an SR22 whilst using the autopilot, in a reduced power cruise climb at 10,000 ft with VS mode at 800fpm?
Given that there's some conjecture about the aircraft being in a flat spin - while I've never even sat in a Cirrus, on most aircraft the spin will be flat if the engine remains at high power. Is it possible that, following a pilot incapacitation with no further control inputs, the aircraft stalled with cruise/climb power, departing controlled flight into a flat spin?
However for this to develop into a spin, yaw would have to be present in some form or other, otherwise the nose would just drop and the plane would mush downwards. Stalling a Cirrus with no yaw is relatively benign; because of the cuffed design of the wing, the inboard portion of it stalls first, allowing the outboard area to remain unstalled, meaning the ailerons are still effective; in a Cirrus, you can actually use the ailerons in a stall to keep the wings level.... yes, you're descending rapidly but without yaw, it won't spin - the Cirrus SR2x aircraft were considered the first spin resistant aircraft EASA certified.. External factors such as turbulence might create the yaw required to induce the spin, though....
Modern autopilots such as the Garmin GFC or Avidyne DFC have a safety feature which will trim the nose downwards before stalling the aircraft - unfortunately we don't know what A/P this aircraft had fitted. Other factors which can cause an aircraft to stall without pilot input would be icing, trim runaway...
An instructor rating should include actual spin recoveries, since it's highly likely that a student can put you in one.
Not true. If the aircraft was flying using a basic autopilot such as the STEC 55x, set on HDG & VS mode, climbing with, say, 700fpm, eventually the autopilot will pull the aircraft into a stall as the engine can no longer generate the power required to sustain the climb, the higher it climbs. In order to keep the commanded climb rate, the autopilot raises the nose in order to continue to climb....hey presto - stall. Depending on the VS set, depends how soon the aircraft will stall - with VS+1000 fpm commanded, it will stall much earlier than, say, VS +300fpm.
However for this to develop into a spin, yaw would have to be present in some form or other, otherwise the nose would just drop and the plane would mush downwards. Stalling a Cirrus with no yaw is relatively benign; because of the cuffed design of the wing, the inboard portion of it stalls first, allowing the outboard area to remain unstalled, meaning the ailerons are still effective; in a Cirrus, you can actually use the ailerons in a stall to keep the wings level.... yes, you're descending rapidly but without yaw, it won't spin - the Cirrus SR2x aircraft were considered the first spin resistant aircraft EASA certified.. External factors such as turbulence might create the yaw required to induce the spin, though....
However for this to develop into a spin, yaw would have to be present in some form or other, otherwise the nose would just drop and the plane would mush downwards. Stalling a Cirrus with no yaw is relatively benign; because of the cuffed design of the wing, the inboard portion of it stalls first, allowing the outboard area to remain unstalled, meaning the ailerons are still effective; in a Cirrus, you can actually use the ailerons in a stall to keep the wings level.... yes, you're descending rapidly but without yaw, it won't spin - the Cirrus SR2x aircraft were considered the first spin resistant aircraft EASA certified.. External factors such as turbulence might create the yaw required to induce the spin, though....
It looks like the autopilot tried hard once to stall unsuccessfully, then a minute or two later it tried again... successfully. Did it get away with a nose drop the first time, then nose drop and spin the second time? As you say, turbulence could cause that, however do you think that a full or cruise power stall with full back-stick may result in a wing drop into a stall with limited yaw input?
Does that STEC have a YD?
even if it did I’d say it would have made little difference.
A full power on stall in any 300hp single is not a benign nose drop event. Granted at 9000’ it’s not 300hp anymore but I can see a cirrus departing in quite a sporting manner at full power without a boot full of right rudder.
Won’t be the first time in a cirrus either. Plenty of lazy right foot cirrus prangs.
even if it did I’d say it would have made little difference.
A full power on stall in any 300hp single is not a benign nose drop event. Granted at 9000’ it’s not 300hp anymore but I can see a cirrus departing in quite a sporting manner at full power without a boot full of right rudder.
Won’t be the first time in a cirrus either. Plenty of lazy right foot cirrus prangs.
The following users liked this post:
Does that STEC have a YD?
even if it did I’d say it would have made little difference.
A full power on stall in any 300hp single is not a benign nose drop event. Granted at 9000’ it’s not 300hp anymore but I can see a cirrus departing in quite a sporting manner at full power without a boot full of right rudder.
Won’t be the first time in a cirrus either. Plenty of lazy right foot cirrus prangs.
even if it did I’d say it would have made little difference.
A full power on stall in any 300hp single is not a benign nose drop event. Granted at 9000’ it’s not 300hp anymore but I can see a cirrus departing in quite a sporting manner at full power without a boot full of right rudder.
Won’t be the first time in a cirrus either. Plenty of lazy right foot cirrus prangs.
In this case I’m assuming a reduced power cruise climb as the speed doesn’t seem to be high enough for a full power climb.
The syllabus includes competency in "Avoid Spin".
The following 2 users liked this post by Clare Prop:
Agreed, a student hasn't come close to putting me in a spin, not even in the planes that want to spin.