Cirrus SR22 Accident Nov. 16, 2008 off Cherbourg

[Lurking123]

I'll try and take this discussion on a different (but posslbly equally contentious) tack.

The Cirrus Perspective is an awesome bit of kit. 3-D 'virtual' vision and you can now get the IR TV as an option. Undoubtedly, the experienced pilot can use this kit in very difficult situations. But, and this is a big but, there are many inexperienced pilots out there. IMHO that all these toys can lead in-disciplined or inexperienced pilots into difficult situations. I'm not saying this happened over the Channel a couple of nights back, but is it time that GA and the CAA looked a little more closely at non-complex, complex aircraft?

[Fuji Abound]

.. .. .. but difference training is required (see LASORS) for glass with an appropriate sign off.

Moreover I suspect the insurance company are going to want to see some type specific training. There are a couple of organisations that specifically offer this for the Cirrus - and they do a jolly good job.

I find it hard to believe a pilot would be signed off on the Cirrus unless his instructor felt the "student" could do a reasonable job.

Experience does come with time served. Many an old hand will tell you the current crop of low time ATPLs pushed as quickly as possible through the system are a disaster waiting to happen every time they are asked to operate outside the box.

Without wishing to be repetitous operating over the sea at night is as close to instrument flying as you can get without technically being "on instruments". As makes no difference it is a tough enviroment in which to operate single pilot.

Without doubt the greater the automation the greater the temptation to rely on it. However, the acid test in my view should be - could I fly the whole sector entirely by hand. If you cant the answer is you are too reliant on the automatics.

[IO540]

SoCal

Identifying and getting through such a hole over the sea in darkness may well have been tricky for anybody regardless of experience levels..

I was referring to the "European type of hole in clouds" which always exists in Europe, where a pilot without an IR needs it

In the USA you have a much more accessible IR so there are a lot fewer holes in clouds

However, this leads us to needing to know about the pilot's experience etc, which we don't know and aren't likely to find out.

Lurking123

is it time that GA and the CAA looked a little more closely at non-complex, complex aircraft?

There is currently no legal basis for "avionics type ratings" under ICAO. In the USA this is dealt with by insurance companies requiring type specific training, and it is getting that way (slowly) in the UK too.

Apart from avionics, there is nothing advanced about a Cirrus - it is just another ~ conventional 300HP piston plane which flies perfectly well with few if any gotchas.

I've had instructors tell me that at 150kt things will happen so fast that I will be totally behind the plane, but this is bollox for enroute flight (where 250kt would be nice, over many especially tedious areas) and for flying IFR ops one needs to know how to fly them anyway...

[S-Works]

I've had instructors tell me that at 150kt things will happen so fast that I will be totally behind the plane

That may be so at your level of experience IO, but take a low hours pilot fresh from the usual school trainers and 150kts feels like warp-speed.

Like anything it takes a fair amount of time to build up the wherewithal to actually get in front of the aircraft. I see the same thing all the time converting people on to the Lance fresh from school warriors, it takes them awhile to get ahead and then only regular flying and experience keeps them ahead.

[Cobalt]

Ummmm I checked out on a 150kt Mooney 10 hours after getting my PPL and flew into an international airport... and I believe you are a big proponent of mentoring and spreading one's wings, Bose. (And neither you nor I include flying at night in IMC without the required ratings in "spreading one's wings" - if that is what happened here).

Having said that, if you are cruising along in a slippery airframe at 170kt and it gets away from you, you can be dead very quickly.

The unfortunate truth might be that we will never know. The airframe appears to be thoroughty destroyed and in water, so whatever went wrong is unlikely to come out, at least anything more insightful than "loss of control"

[S-Works]

Indeed Cobalt, I am a proponent of people spreading wings and gaining experience. I am just reflecting that it takes the average person a bit of time to get ahead of a high performance aircraft and then it needs constant practice to stay ahead. Experienced and current pilots like IO will feel 150kts to be pedestrian and look for more, but for the less experienced this needs to be tempered a little and not let enthusiasm override experience.

[Fuji Abound]

There is currently no legal basis for "avionics type ratings" under ICAO.

That may be so, but LASORS (see section F, SEP type ratings and difference training) is quite specific regarding the additional training required for glass and the responsibilites of the instructor.

In the case of the Cirrus LASORS also has more than something to say about single lever ops.

The FAA I think go about it in a slightly different way. Simply in the States they know you will not get insurance unless you have attended an appropriate course.

I am just reflecting that it takes the average person a bit of time to get ahead of a high performance aircraft and then it needs constant practice to stay ahead.

I know a bit about pilots converting to the Cirrus.

As with all things some get it very quickly, some never quite "get it".

On the whole the difficult bit is not the on route sector, particulaly if the on route sector is a straight line through non complex airspace.

The hard part is handling the aircraft in and around the circuit. The Cirrus is as quick and as slippery as any light single. Its really easy to get high and fast.

The designers have done a good job of keeping the management of the aircraft simple IF the pilot is comfortable with the G1000 or Avidyne displays. If the pilot is not comfortable searching for the information he needs at times of stress is very distracting. Even adapting to the tape displays and the extreme accuracy of the AI can be disconcerting for some. Any instructor accustom to glass is well aware of these issues.

Flying a complex twin is a significantly higher work load but everything is relative.

[Big_Sam]

He was more experienced that you might think.

Despite only getting his plane in the summer, he had around 100 hours on type. He was up for several flights last week alone. He knew that plane inside out, and flew it fluidly.

[Riverboat]

Well done, Big Sam, for pointing that out. The pilot was in the en route phase, and speed in the circuit, etc. was totally irrelevant. He would be using the autopilot, sitting back enjoying the flight. The aircraft would fly to Jersey without his having to do much. When he got descent to 3000ft (which itself indicates that he was probably cruising at FL 040 or 060 outside of CAS and above those clouds at 2200-2700ft which have previously been referred to), all he would do is reselect the altitude on the autopilot, set a rate of descent, and the autopilot would look after the whole issue. The Cirrus autopilot is very good (STEC 55X).

That is what should have been happening. But something different happened. What that is, no one knows, and let us all hope that the French quickly come up with some answers. In particular, all Cirrus pilots will want to know if the engine failed, and if so, why? If it did fail, why didn't he make a mayday call? There is a suggestion that he did, but generally the view is that he didn't. So does this perhaps mean that there was an electrical problem? If the lights suddenly go out, you can be in serious trouble, however experienced you are.

There are all sorts of scary possibilities and really we need to have as many answers as possible as quickly as possible. I certainly do not subscribe to the view that because he was relatively inexperienced (but 100 hours on type sounds experienced to me), the cause is likely to be pilot-induced.

Riverboat

[karl414ac]

Cirrus Sr22

I recently started flying a SR22 at Blackpool (EGNH) i an only a low hour PPL (170ish hrs) and find it a huge step from flying the usual flying school spam cans . The cirrus has no redundancy systems for the pitch and roll trim , the fuel delivery system is very unreliable when the engine is hot after landing or a long taxi run due to the inlet manifold and injector nozzles being on top of the cylinders instead of below like on most other aircraft. Having completed a few long trips in the SR22 seeing 180-195knts TAS is not uncommon which is a good 75knts more than anything else i had flown before so situational awareness is kept at the maximum at all times and supported by the 2 garmin 430 and Avidyne Ex500 MFD with TCAS and Wx500 strikefinder which really helps when avoiding weather.
My advice to anyone who intends on flying such a high performance aircraft would be take all the training you can , not just until the instructer confident but when you feel confident with handling the aircraft in any situation that could arise with a 200mph+ aircraft

414AC

[Phil Space]

None of the press reports mention a mayday call which I would expect in the case of an engine problem.The lack of a distress call from the aircraft suggests whatever happened occurred very quickly.

[IanSeager]

Originally Posted by Riverboat

When he got descent to 3000ft (which itself indicates that he was probably cruising at FL 040 or 060 outside of CAS and above those clouds at 2200-2700ft which have previously been referred to), all he would do is reselect the altitude on the autopilot, set a rate of descent, and the autopilot would look after the whole issue. The Cirrus autopilot is very good (STEC 55X).

You have some fairly specific altitudes there, where does the information come from?

Ian

[IO540]

My advice to anyone who intends on flying such a high performance aircraft would be take all the training you can

I agree 100% however it can be hard to find instructors who are any good with these more complex (I am deliberately not saying "faster" because enroute speed is all but irrelevant - it just makes the magenta line pass by 1.5x quicker) types. I bought a new TB20 nearly 7 years ago and never found an instructor who even knew how the HSI worked, in terms of tracking GPS, approaches, etc. It is a real issue that on the UK scene the hour builders know next to nothing, a lot of the older residents know hardly more, but almost any instructor loves to go up in a nice new plane even if he doesn't actually know how it works. I was fed the biggest load of bull about things like engine management, for example. Some (a few) instructors even run hidden agendas e.g. to try to get your shiny new plane set up on a leaseback to the school; I got one of those quite early on and he did various things to make me p*ssed off with the plane (it was not without some early reliability issues) and stick it on his school's fleet. He also declared that nobody who was an existing or potential customer of his would be allowed to fly with me (what a nice man).

In retrospect, I picked up most of what I needed to know from articles on the internet. The instructor just did my complex signoff, which I obviously needed to be legal. This is not quite how it should work!! But these days things are a lot better - if you buy a Cirrus you can go to TAA and get very good type specific training.

However we don't know whether pilot training had anything whatever to do with this one. As Riverboat says above, the flight should have been completely uneventful and with a very low pilot workload.

Enroute speed is irrelevant. The biggest speed management issue I found when moving from the 100kt spamcans to a 150kt plane was that with a spamcan you fly along, join the circuit, and land, whereas with a 150kt machine you fly along, then you have to slow down before you reach the destination, and one cannot lose 50kt and lose say 5000ft, in say 3nm Well one can (it's called a descending orbit) but one looks a right pr*ck doing this kind of stunt in the overhead So, one has to think ahead a bit and start descending and slowing down, say 20-40nm before the destination. But this is pretty easy and one soon learns it. It is a very long way from rocket science. Any instructor saying otherwise is doing you a dis-service and probably never flies for real.

[Fuji Abound]

the fuel delivery system is very unreliable when the engine is hot after landing or a long taxi run due to the inlet manifold and injector nozzles being on top of the cylinders instead of below like on most other aircraft.

As a minor point of order unrelated to this accident this is a common issue with many injected engines - starting when hot is actually rarely a problem, but you need to apply the correct technique.

[IO540]

Yes, it is only a fuel injected engine starting issue. Cold starts are fine; usually instant. Hot starts are also fine if you follow the proper procedure. It is the "luke warm" starts which can take a lot more cranking. But as Fuji says this is not relevant to flight.

A Q on the SR22: if you lose the alternator, how long will the backup AI run for? Will it run until the battery goes flat? Is there any scenario where one could lose the glass avionics and also lose the backup AI?

[soay]

The Perspective SR22 has dual alternators, either of which can power the avionics systems. Cirrus didn't want to lose the GFC700 autopilot, if an alternator failed, as happens in Diamonds and Cessna 350/400s.

[IO540]

Cirrus didn't want to lose the GFC700 autopilot, if an alternator failed, as happens in Diamonds and Cessna 350/400s.

The Cessna 400 has two alternators. I flew in one the other day. One is belt driven; the other gear driven. And it has two batteries. A very very good system, with two separate buses and essential avionics powered via diodes from both buses.

On my TB20, the AI is vac pump driven which is great for redundancy - lose ALL electrics, fly with the handheld GPS and the handheld radio. OTOH it is a stupid system because vac pumps DO fail (c. 1000hrs but they vary a lot) and when the vac pump fails I lose the AP because the AP uses the vac AI as the roll/pitch reference A better system would have been an electric AI, driven off a miniature alternator fitted in place of the vac pump; these do indeed exist but the KFC225 AP is not certified with any electric AI (other than a weird $25,000 remotely mounted gyro....)

[Vino Collapso]

When he got descent to 3000ft (which itself indicates that he was probably cruising at FL 040 or 060 outside of CAS and above those clouds at 2200-2700ft which have previously been referred to), all he would do is reselect the altitude on the autopilot, set a rate of descent, and the autopilot would look after the whole issue.

That sort of reflects what I have heard 'third hand'. The aircraft was in the cruise at 3,000 ft then elected, or was requested to, descend. Things looked good down to 2,500 ft then it lost all that remaining height very rapidly. One quote was that radar contact was lost 9 seconds later but that doesn't necessarily mean it reached surface level in that time.

[IO540]

What is the approx location of the impact?

The secondary (Mode C) return holds up pretty well, long after the primary return is lost.

[pilotbear]

If the aeroplane is in ALT HOLD or only a shallow VS mode and the engine quits it may stall very quickly.