Cirrus SR22 Accident Nov. 16, 2008 off Cherbourg
If a thread starter deletes the 1st post (his post) the whole thread disappears.
He was clearly a very close friend of the pilot, and I am sure very distressed by the whole thing as I'm sure we can all understand.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.. .. .. and I had just written this comment, but not posted it.
Without specific reference to this accident, the issues that can bring down a light aircraft can be put simply - weather - ice and turbulence, engine failure and pilot error. There are a couple of odd balls like structural failure, collision, and pilot incapacity but fortunately these are very rare.
In many cases you can rule in or out hazardous weather as being a direct factor (and I don’t include in that category inadvertent flight into IMC, which I would categorise as pilot error). Collisions can always be ruled in or out as usually can structural failure but pilot incapacity is very difficult to eliminate.
There are numerous traps for the unwary during an instrument let down, which is why so many accidents occur during this phase. For similar reasons visual approaches and landings account for a significant number of accidents. Both at some point are inevitably a test of hand flying skills which inevitably can expose any shortcomings.
On route however in the absence of collision, structural failure or adverse weather there aren’t too many suspects that remain.
Engine failure at night and possibly in IMC over the sea is a hazard none of us ever want to encounter. Success without a parachute will depend on solid hand flying skills, and more than a healthy dose of luck. If you have a chute personally I would pull it on every occasion.
There remains the other events that could lead to a loss of control.
Flying at night over the sea even in VMC is the same as flying on instruments as makes no difference. Glass panels highly automate the process and all the time everything is working there is little reason why anything should go wrong as long as you are up to speed with the avionics. However, avionics do go wrong. Most of the SR fleet have Avidyne glass, but a few have the G1000 suite. There are many similarities between the two. Both share in having only one electronic AI and DI. I know of people who have had the AI fail, and I have had the DI fail on more than one occasion. I also know of people who have had the PDF fail - at least with the G1000 in the event of a panel failure the MDF can operate in reversionary mode. The autopilots are reasonably reliable, however similarly they do fail. I know of a number of cases including the dangerous runaway servo. Any of these events can leave the pilot hand flying the aircraft. As we know hand flying any aircraft at night in IMC is demanding. Add into the equation the worry at the backup of your mind that the avionics have packed up for unknown reasons leaving you flying on the standby AI, magnetic compass and ASI and the flying has suddenly become as challenging as we want to make it. In that respect at least there is the real danger of glass cockpits creating a culture of pilots who rely to heavily on the automatics.
I have no idea what caused this accident and there is very little hard evidence to enable informed speculation if that were desirable. I have a quite a few hundred hours on both the G1000 and Avidyne systems and also on Srs so I have a particular interest in what caused both this accident and the other recent EFATO. I hope that we will be able to piece together a better understanding as the facts become available and see what lessons are to be learnt.
Without specific reference to this accident, the issues that can bring down a light aircraft can be put simply - weather - ice and turbulence, engine failure and pilot error. There are a couple of odd balls like structural failure, collision, and pilot incapacity but fortunately these are very rare.
In many cases you can rule in or out hazardous weather as being a direct factor (and I don’t include in that category inadvertent flight into IMC, which I would categorise as pilot error). Collisions can always be ruled in or out as usually can structural failure but pilot incapacity is very difficult to eliminate.
There are numerous traps for the unwary during an instrument let down, which is why so many accidents occur during this phase. For similar reasons visual approaches and landings account for a significant number of accidents. Both at some point are inevitably a test of hand flying skills which inevitably can expose any shortcomings.
On route however in the absence of collision, structural failure or adverse weather there aren’t too many suspects that remain.
Engine failure at night and possibly in IMC over the sea is a hazard none of us ever want to encounter. Success without a parachute will depend on solid hand flying skills, and more than a healthy dose of luck. If you have a chute personally I would pull it on every occasion.
There remains the other events that could lead to a loss of control.
Flying at night over the sea even in VMC is the same as flying on instruments as makes no difference. Glass panels highly automate the process and all the time everything is working there is little reason why anything should go wrong as long as you are up to speed with the avionics. However, avionics do go wrong. Most of the SR fleet have Avidyne glass, but a few have the G1000 suite. There are many similarities between the two. Both share in having only one electronic AI and DI. I know of people who have had the AI fail, and I have had the DI fail on more than one occasion. I also know of people who have had the PDF fail - at least with the G1000 in the event of a panel failure the MDF can operate in reversionary mode. The autopilots are reasonably reliable, however similarly they do fail. I know of a number of cases including the dangerous runaway servo. Any of these events can leave the pilot hand flying the aircraft. As we know hand flying any aircraft at night in IMC is demanding. Add into the equation the worry at the backup of your mind that the avionics have packed up for unknown reasons leaving you flying on the standby AI, magnetic compass and ASI and the flying has suddenly become as challenging as we want to make it. In that respect at least there is the real danger of glass cockpits creating a culture of pilots who rely to heavily on the automatics.
I have no idea what caused this accident and there is very little hard evidence to enable informed speculation if that were desirable. I have a quite a few hundred hours on both the G1000 and Avidyne systems and also on Srs so I have a particular interest in what caused both this accident and the other recent EFATO. I hope that we will be able to piece together a better understanding as the facts become available and see what lessons are to be learnt.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
someone was posting on the earlier thread about engine failures in SR20 and SR22.
Could that person post the statistics here? numbers, conditions, known or expected causes?
Are there statistics available o the deployment of the chutes? numbers, casualties?
Just general curiosity, I fly Piper
thx
Could that person post the statistics here? numbers, conditions, known or expected causes?
Are there statistics available o the deployment of the chutes? numbers, casualties?
Just general curiosity, I fly Piper
thx
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not hard to find writeups on the Cirrus chute pulls. There have been quite a few but I don't recall any of them were done in an engine failure scenario, or indeed any other situation where a conventional forced landing would have been clearly inadvisable - except the one (widely written up on the internet by the American pilot himself) who had an epileptic seizure and pulled the chute in case it happened again; I believe he was the one case of a descent into water.
In this case, without knowing the radar track (including Mode C returns) it is impossible to speculate as to which of a wide range of causes it might have been. Possibilities include
- An unmonitored descent into the surface. This is easily done and I've done it a few times, though obviously (!!) never disastrously. It can happen when flying manually, when forgetting to look out of the window. One famous airliner did this, with all 3 pilots trying to change a bulb... Or it can be done with the autopilot if one sets up a descent and forgets to ARM the altitude capture...... and with a genuinely dark night it will happen much more easily. This is why one cannot just set up an autopilot to descend to say 2000ft and forget about it. One needs to monitor it. Some autopilots have subtle software bugs which cause them to do odd things.
- An engine failure. In this case you have (at best) about -1000fpm ROD which gives you barely a few seconds from the instant the landing light spot is seen on the water, to hitting the water. This is why I very rarely fly at night.
- Loss of control, Kennedy-style. But I would hope that an SR22 owner would know how to use the autopilot - in a Cirrus, with its spring-loaded sidesticks (I have flown one) the AP is the most useful set of knobs, after the throttle
and unsuprising "evidence" from the USA suggests that most Cirruses are flown on the AP nearly all the time.
I don't think the Cirrus has an abnormal rate of outright engine failures. In fact the failure rate among these new or newish IO-540/550 engined planes seems to be a lot lower than what is found among the rest of GA. The failure rate among the normal 25-35 year old GA fleet is much higher, ISTM. Some engine failure data is eye-watering e.g. the 10% rate on Malibu Mirages (ref: Aviation Consumer) but that is a tightly cowled engine with real thermal management issues.
In this case, without knowing the radar track (including Mode C returns) it is impossible to speculate as to which of a wide range of causes it might have been. Possibilities include
- An unmonitored descent into the surface. This is easily done and I've done it a few times, though obviously (!!) never disastrously. It can happen when flying manually, when forgetting to look out of the window. One famous airliner did this, with all 3 pilots trying to change a bulb... Or it can be done with the autopilot if one sets up a descent and forgets to ARM the altitude capture...... and with a genuinely dark night it will happen much more easily. This is why one cannot just set up an autopilot to descend to say 2000ft and forget about it. One needs to monitor it. Some autopilots have subtle software bugs which cause them to do odd things.
- An engine failure. In this case you have (at best) about -1000fpm ROD which gives you barely a few seconds from the instant the landing light spot is seen on the water, to hitting the water. This is why I very rarely fly at night.
- Loss of control, Kennedy-style. But I would hope that an SR22 owner would know how to use the autopilot - in a Cirrus, with its spring-loaded sidesticks (I have flown one) the AP is the most useful set of knobs, after the throttle
and unsuprising "evidence" from the USA suggests that most Cirruses are flown on the AP nearly all the time.I don't think the Cirrus has an abnormal rate of outright engine failures. In fact the failure rate among these new or newish IO-540/550 engined planes seems to be a lot lower than what is found among the rest of GA. The failure rate among the normal 25-35 year old GA fleet is much higher, ISTM. Some engine failure data is eye-watering e.g. the 10% rate on Malibu Mirages (ref: Aviation Consumer) but that is a tightly cowled engine with real thermal management issues.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- An unmonitored descent into the surface.
With both the G1000 and the Avidyne you will get the usual "five hundred" aural warning. Of course you might ignore that as well but it is quite attention grabing especially if you are not expecting it. Unless you have set a very uncomfortable rate of descent plenty of time to realise what you did wrong.
Even over the land the TA will give you a warning in this scenario (although you would not want to rely on it).
- Loss of control, Kennedy-style.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 18th Nov 2008 at 11:45.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With both the G1000 and the Avidyne you will get the usual "five hundred" aural warning
There is a general terrain proximity warning, plus an 'excessive sink' warning. But I have flown at c. 400ft over the sea, to test the GPWS setup when approaching a 500ft high cliff, and this worked perfectly but I did not get a warning from the sea proximity, only from the cliff coming up. Obviously I made sure there were no boats in the water otherwise one busts the 500ft rule
With the Perspective the Level button is ano option that has not been available before.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: E Anglia
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can fully understand the original poster pulling the thread. He was clearly a PPRuNe virgin and must have been quite shocked at the way it , rather predictably, developed.
He must be hurting badly for the loss of his best mate and a PPRuNe 'seeing to' of his simple enquiry was the last thing he needed.
Cusco.
He must be hurting badly for the loss of his best mate and a PPRuNe 'seeing to' of his simple enquiry was the last thing he needed.
Cusco.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brighton. UK. (Via Liverpool).
Posts: 5,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just renamed it for you to carry on discussing.
As stated the original poster pulled it for personal reasons which is fair enough.
I also like this that was posted then deleted when the poster realised it wasn't us who pulled it, these things make me giggle......
As stated the original poster pulled it for personal reasons which is fair enough.
I also like this that was posted then deleted when the poster realised it wasn't us who pulled it, these things make me giggle......
Quote:Looks like they pulled it!
PPRuNe censorship, as always ! But who, exactly, are THEY ?
PPRuNe censorship, as always ! But who, exactly, are THEY ?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I0
No, the 500 warning has nothing to do with the airport, it is simply triggered by the aircraft being 500 feet above SL.
TAWS can be turned off, and, come to that, needs to be installed in the first place. It is therefore possible that neither the 500 foot annuciation or any other is made. With the G1000 set up the warnings are extensive, including "sink rate", and "obstacle, obstacle, pull up, pull up".
I accept your point about the level button except it is such an obvious feature on the aircraft and sufficiently well billed in the advertising material that I would be surprised if many pilots flying this particular aircraft were not aware of the button. However for it to be any use the pilot does need to recognise that he has lost control.
No, the 500 warning has nothing to do with the airport, it is simply triggered by the aircraft being 500 feet above SL.
TAWS can be turned off, and, come to that, needs to be installed in the first place. It is therefore possible that neither the 500 foot annuciation or any other is made. With the G1000 set up the warnings are extensive, including "sink rate", and "obstacle, obstacle, pull up, pull up".
I accept your point about the level button except it is such an obvious feature on the aircraft and sufficiently well billed in the advertising material that I would be surprised if many pilots flying this particular aircraft were not aware of the button. However for it to be any use the pilot does need to recognise that he has lost control.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 18th Nov 2008 at 13:26.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: purley
Age: 69
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cirrus issues
If this was the Cirrus that took off from Biggin at about 4.00pm on Sunday, I was there and watched it go. The rain and mist had just passed through Biggin going south with very clear air coming in from the north behind the front.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I deleted the thread.
It is natural to want to discuss an accident, but the family would not appreciate some of the speculation and comments that were mixed in with it.
I'm glad you have started another thread, as long as you stick to discussing the technical details, and not about the pilot, I will contribute.
I studied aircraft maintenance when I was a student, although did not persue a career in Part 66. As far as I know the aircraft was in excellent condition, it had just had its 50 hour check when I had gone up. If there were any issues the maintenance records will have noted it. That is for the AAIB to investigate.
Thank you,
Sam
It is natural to want to discuss an accident, but the family would not appreciate some of the speculation and comments that were mixed in with it.
I'm glad you have started another thread, as long as you stick to discussing the technical details, and not about the pilot, I will contribute.
I studied aircraft maintenance when I was a student, although did not persue a career in Part 66. As far as I know the aircraft was in excellent condition, it had just had its 50 hour check when I had gone up. If there were any issues the maintenance records will have noted it. That is for the AAIB to investigate.
Thank you,
Sam
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In a Nacelle
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree Sam. Too many theories and speculation as to what did / did not happen. I hope people will respect this and wait for the full report, after which conclusions can be discussed. Until then it little more than 'educated' gossip.