Mate, I love a good drift as much as I can get away with:O

If you mean ATSB bashing over Whyalla....yeah, we should save that for another time.

"And when you learn about a heap of other complicit events that were never reported........ Ohh they would get sarcs, gobbledock and kharon all excited"

Correct Jabba.... Well...there's the bait on the line that caught my eye anyway...

Stiky
;)

Did I not read in one of the articles in this thread that the engine was misbehaving possibly several hours prior to the engine failing during the same flight? This does sound a little like Whyalla in that case.

hahhha

That would be where the similarities start and end though.

But I think I know what you are thinking XXX :suspect:

Jaba... Do tell. It does seem slightly improbabable that a $600,000 state of the art machine suffers a totally random loss of oil pressure in mid flight. As it seems likely it's now a write off, I do hope it's not covered by our insurer, or we might all end up paying something for this :confused:

Not much to tell, but I knew what XXX was referring to.

I have not any firm evidence to offer here but the passing of perfectly usable runways with an indication of a problem, or in the previous case after the first problem is often seen with hindsight as not a good idea.

I wish I knew more about the SR22 but it is a fair bet the plane and engine were were not the real problem. It is most often poor pilot or maintenance defects that lead to these things. And none of us are immune to it.

I think a quick simple ATSB report would be nice, plenty of live witnesses, engine data logs..... If that told the story, it would be of more interest than some that get big lengthy reports at great expense.

Can't disagree with that. Must be a relatively straightforward explanation that could be provided within a month.

Outstanding post, Cloud Breaker. Spot on in every way. The Cirrus has an additional safety feature in the CAPS thanks to the Klapmeier brothers, who designed it, wanting it to be the safest aircraft possible. The Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association have concentrated their safety focus on minimising the number of fatal accidents for members. The members forum of COPA applauded loudly the pilot's actions in this accident. As would all Australian Cirrus pilots who have been trained by Cirrus approved instructors.

The Cirrus Pilots Proficiency Program teaches that at 500ft ago CAPS is available, above 2000ft agl consider your options. But if you can't land on an airstrip after an emergency, including a total engine failure, - pull the chute preferably by 2000ft agl.

Driving your Pajero/Land Cruiser/BMW X5 down a ramp onto an untested paddock at 125kph makes no sense to me. And all of them would cope much better than a Cirrus.

The facts and statistics of Cirrus accidents support the view of the safest aircraft possible do they?

YouTube

Cloud basher, just out of interest, hypothetical, your oil pressure guage is indicating a loss of pressure. You are tracking departure point direct to destination. You press the 'direct to' button on the GPS, you track direct to the closest aerodrome, say, in this hypothetical it's, ahhh I dunno? Gilgandra.

Still losing oil pressure, what do you do? Overfly to destination hoping for the best or land at Gilgandra?

I am an Australian pilot who was trained in a certified Cirrus flying school and I don't applaud the pilot for his actions for a number of reasons that led up to this "incident." I can only hope that the ATSB get a hold of the avionics stack for further analysis ;)

Fair dinkum, you cant be serious, as far as I can see, the manufacturer of the aircraft recommend this procedure and you dont????
The FACT is, the people walked away from this accident, it is NOT possible to guarantee that the same would have happened if they had taken the option of attempting a forced landing.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Ahhhhhh, Arnold, read my post above triple's, answer that post before you ask triple that question. Apart from my post there is more to this. I echo triple's sentiments, I hope we get the full story:ok:

If you were the pilot of that aircraft, as an engineer, that accident would never have gotten to the stage it did. Have a think about it. The ONLY good thing about this is that student pilots should be sat down with a cuppa & have a good read. That's if the arseclowns don't stuff the report :ugh:

Jack, no question that continuing with oil pressure on the decline was stupid, no question, but the decision to pull the big red handle in my opinion was not.
Given that the original decision was stupid (looking at this from an engineer's perspective, and pilot, ) the decision to pull the handle was not, (looking at it from the same perspective).

Mate, I won't criticise the handle pull, wasn't there and don't know anything about the procedure. Apart from what Griffo posted about the procedure, I'd **** myself more pulling that handle than attempting a forced landing into that paddock :cool:

I think triple is more than qualified in this instance to comment ;)

Arnold - I would happily accept that the pilot pulled the handle.... can't argue with him for that as much as we might think the paddock could land a 737, but as Jacko says, it's what allegedly happened leading up to the big pull that would be of the most concern and no Cirrus association member in the world would agree with that.

I'd love for the pilot to come on here and give us a full account of what happened rather than what sounded like a Cirrus marketing advertorial diatribe in the Dubbo Weekly Times.

Luckily for the guy in the aerobatic aircraft his descent wasn't at 1,600fpm+ Great video!

- Oh, the video disappeared. Put it back, it was relevant!

Video disappeared quickly!!

Was good too...

Sorry I stuffed the pic. Gosh you lot are quick!

quite possibly not at 1600ft/min quite possible its a far lighter airframe, made lighter again less one wing.