Aircraft lands in Cheltenham garden

[Jonzarno]

Pace

Sorry, I wasn't trying to identify any accident you referred to, I just did a search for an accident to look at and this one was the first that came up.

As I said: there are lots of others...........

[Pace]

That's ok ; ) I am
Not hitting the Cirrus or the BRS as its my dream machine! Saw a new report on the London Underground paper with a good picture!
The police are saying how lucky the crash was as many on the ground could have been killed or seriously injured if the aircraft had not come down where it did!
This is what we are up against! I feel all the points I have made are valid including the aircraft enticing pilots to fly in conditions they are not current to fly in or up to the job of doing so
Yes there will be times where pulling over a built up area but there are also times where the pilot should glide clear even if that increases risk to himself!
Those who use the excuse that no one has been killed under a chuted Cirrus are Naive it will only take one bad location crash under the chute and we are all in serious problems!
Pilots must keep up their handling skills and fly within the limits they would set themselves in conventional aircraft!
The aircraft and its systems should not be used to replace or safeguard against lack of those skills

Pace

[dublinpilot]

The aircraft and its systems should not be used to replace or safeguard against lack of those skills

While I agree with that, I think the focus on the parachute is wrong.

I find it hard to believe that knowing I've a parachure available would make me more inclined to take off into bad weather as I know that pulling it will be very expensive and embarrassing. Great if needed, but not a situation that I'd want to find myself in.

However I can easily envisionage how having a full autopilot and an advanced avionics suite would provide that temptation. I could envisionage it to be a lot easier to convince myself that the autopilot can do the IMC stuff that I'm not capable of and I just have to 'monitor the systems'.

Obviously not a good think to do, but a lot easier to imagine than the idea that a parachute would provide the temptation.

Of course advanced autopilots and avionics are fitted to many aircraft, so it doesn't help the Cirrus haters

dp

[mad_jock]

its nothing to do with hating the aircraft and we don't actually have much problem with having the chute either. its a bit like air-bags in cars.

[Johnm]

As someone who has flown an Archer and a Trinidad, autopilot coupled or manually, on that 27 RNAV approach in all sorts of weather I sit here mystified. The AAIB report will be eagerly awaited.

[Jonzarno]

DP

You're right about the autopilot and avionics being a temptation to under qualified pilots.

There are plenty of examples, but perhaps the best known is the death of JFK junior and his two passengers.

[baldwinm]

However I can easily envisionage how having a full autopilot and an advanced avionics suite would provide that temptation. I could envisionage it to be a lot easier to convince myself that the autopilot can do the IMC stuff that I'm not capable of and I just have to 'monitor the systems'.

Commercial air traffic has an excellent safety record, no doubt in part to the level of automation involved, but when things start to go wrong with the technology it can be hard for the pilots to realise what is happening and utilise traditional piloting skills to recover.

One difference with the later models of Cirrus is that is an all electric (avionics wise) aircraft. There are no standby suction gyros. There is a lot of redundancy in the system but you could end up with blank screens or a lot of red crosses instead of instruments. I have had this happen once (on the ground) and it required a complete restart of the avionics to return to normal. I have also had the autopilot fly straight through the localiser on a coupled approach and on one occasion turn outbound (rather than inbound) on intercept, although the latter was not in a Cirrus. No persistent faults were detected in any of these cases.

[thborchert]

There is a lot of redundancy in the system but you could end up with blank screens or a lot of red crosses instead of instruments.

You could. Then your gaze would move down to the analog backup instruments (I hope).

[baldwinm]

Quote:

There is a lot of redundancy in the system but you could end up with blank screens or a lot of red crosses instead of instruments.

You could. Then your gaze would move down to the analog backup instruments (I hope).

The backup horizon is electric as well. Hopefully that's not winding down. If you have an STEC autopilot that's driven by a (hidden) electric turn coordinator. If you have the Avidyne autopilot or Garmin system I believe that's driven off the solid state gyros as the main displays (which have just failed). In real IMC the chute could become an attractive option really quickly.

To me the chute sort of mitigates the risk of relying on the technology, rather than making me want to push my luck in marginal weather.

[englishal]

I have also had the autopilot fly straight through the localiser on a coupled approach and on one occasion turn outbound (rather than inbound) on intercept, although the latter was not in a Cirrus.

Was this pilot error by any chance as this sounds like the AP was flying a back course, and it could easily be that BC was selected.

Perhaps technology had nothing to do with this accident, perhaps it was a simple pilot error, pilot disorientation, or pilot incapacitation which cased the pilot to pull the red handle. ....

[thborchert]

The backup horizon is electric as well. Hopefully that's not winding down.

Since you say you fly a Cirrus, may I STRONGLY suggest you read up on the electric system design and failure modes? If you have, you'll know that there is no hope involved in the backup horizon NOT winding down (nor the S-TEC TC). It won't - unless you encounter truly unlikely multiple failures, in which case, yes, you do have the chute instead of a death sentence. No airplane (or anything or anyone) is completely failsafe - except Chuck Norris and mad_jock

[baldwinm]

Since you say you fly a Cirrus, may I STRONGLY suggest you read up on the electric system design and failure modes?

I used to fly a Cirrus. I did read all the manuals. There is a lot of redundancy in the electrical system, it is very complicated, far too much to commit to memory. The system can generate a myriad of error messages - mainly trivial, other signifying it's imminent demise (or at least when the batteries run out). Don't get me wrong I think the Cirrus is a great going places aeroplane and the BRS is great - but why not have some non electric standby gyros?

[mad_jock]

I think pace would sort himself out as well and a few others on here.

And never had a complete instrument failure yet on the old steam instruments but had quite a few black screens on EFIS and just had a 1.5" AH and a 1" ASI to fly on until we had sorted it out.

[thborchert]

he system can generate a myriad of error messages - mainly trivial, other signifying it's imminent demise (or at least when the batteries run out).

Nope. Fundamental misunderstanding of the system. It will never run on batteries alone since it has dual alternators (a dual failure is extremely unlikely). Any one of those will power the essential bus indefinitely. The backup gyro is on that bus. Should you run on batteries alone, you still have ample time to land with the gyros spinning.

Why not have a vacuum system? Are you kidding?

[baldwinm]

Was this pilot error by any chance as this sounds like the AP was flying a back course, and it could easily be that BC was selected.

It probably was - I never managed to reproduce it. I have been known to make errors, have "finger trouble" or have the odd "senior moment", unlike some of the sky gods who frequent this forum . IIRC though this was a simple STEC arrangement, without a back course facility.

Perhaps technology had nothing to do with this accident, perhaps it was a simple pilot error, pilot disorientation, or pilot incapacitation which cased the pilot to pull the red handle. ....

In any case the BRS did the job it was supposed to do. Things could have been a lot worse. Personally I have always thought, if I did ever have to pull the handle, I would rather be alive, arguing with people on this forum about whether I should have pulled the handle or not, than dead.

Nope. Fundamental misunderstanding of the system.

I do understand the system.

I also understand that never and extremely unlikely are not the same.

[thborchert]

I do understand the system.

Here's why I was getting excited about it: A guy and passengers died in Zurich because he didn't fully understand the system and believed that, after alternator 1 failed, at some point everything would go dark in his Cirrus. Sad.

[baldwinm]

Here's why I was getting excited about it: A guy and passengers died in Zurich because he didn't fully understand the system and believed that, after alternator 1 failed, at some point everything would go dark in his Cirrus. Sad.

That is sad.



I had to do an 8 hour conversion course but I think more ground school would have been useful. I made sure I read all the documentation available - there is a lot.

I would have thought running through the checklists would have made the duplication in the electrical system obvious.

[Pittsextra]

...and that's the problem. Last 3 Cirrus AAIB reported accidents have one chute pull and no subsequent issue found and the other 2 are low time piloting errors (low time you can read for the Cirrus).

[Jonzarno]

Baldwinm

Your ILS/autopilot problem MAY have been caused by intercepting the localiser to close to the FAF for example if being vectored.

I have had it happen to me (I have Avidyne Entegra avionics but a DFC90 not an Stec autopilot) and what happens is that, if you are vectored to close, the CDI doesn't auto slew and thus points you across the localiser. If you are flying with the AP coupled, it will fly you through the localiser on the heading that is set.

It's easily fixed by manually setting the CDI to the inbound course, but the first time it happens it can take a moment or two to spot unless you include a check of the CDI in your approach checklist.

I obviously can't say for sure if this is what happened to you but it is a possibility.

[P1DRIVER]

Guys, Why are you trying to focus and /or move the attention away from the underlying fundamental problems. Instruments failing this, instruments failing that. Icing up pitot tubes etc etc. If the instruments fail. Whats wrong with looking outside - oh sorry forgot you are somewhere where you shouldn,t be.

THEY ARE FLYING (mostly) In CONDITIONS /PLACES where they should not be - not recent in IMC/ No IR / IMC rating with no recent practice / ICING conditions. Oh and not to mention getting into SPINS ? How do you get into a Spin - oh right flying IMC VFR, no recency or possibly IR/IMC rating. i can do that I've got a safety card.

Sounds like Jo average does not know the basics and how to get out of MINOR problems because the minor problems very quickly build into major problems. Eg. flap malfuntions. SH@t. I can,t land without flaps. Lets PULL.
Eg. Fuel cap left off. WTF. Let it run out of fuel. Lets PULL.

I am NOT getting at the Cirrus or the parachute as many have said previously
Yes it does safe lives - but really ????? Pilots Please think and evaluate.