Lancaster California: Another Fatal Cirrus Crash

[Larry Dighera]

Live video:
http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_009171149.html


http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/events01/media/01_526CD.txt

************************************************** ******************************
** Report created 1/10/2006 Record 1 **

************************************************** ******************************

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 526CD Make/Model: SR22 Description: SR-22
Date: 01/09/2006 Time: 2134

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N
Missing: N
Damage: Destroyed

LOCATION
City: LANCASTER State: CA Country: US

DESCRIPTION
ACFT CRASHED WHILE PRACTICING A MANEUVER, THE TWO PERSONS ON
BOARD WERE FATALLY INJURED, LANCASTER, CA

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 2
# Crew: 2 Fat: 2 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:

WEATHER: 2150Z 04012 50CM CLR 15105 A3029

OTHER DATA

Departed: LANCASTER, CA Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: LANCASTER, CA Flt Plan: Wx Briefing:
Last Radio Cont: ON FINAL
Last Clearance: CLEARED FOR THE OPTION

FAA FSDO: VAN NUYS, CA (WP01) Entry date: 01/10/2006

[Larry Dighera]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-crash10jan10,1,4825462.story?coll=la-headlines-california
January 10, 2006 latimes.com : California Print

2 Killed in Lancaster Plane Crash
Flight instructor and student were practicing takeoffs and landings in
craft with a safety chute.

By Jill Leovy, Times Staff Writer

A flying instructor and his student were killed Monday when a small
plane equipped with a safety parachute crashed northeast of Gen.
William J. Fox Airfield in Lancaster.

The two men, who authorities did not identify pending notification of
relatives, were practicing takeoffs and landings just before their
Cirrus SR20 aircraft went down at 1:42 p.m. in what Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Lt. William Hindman called "open desert" near Avenue F and
40th Street West.

The plane was registered to Todd Olson of Henderson, Nev., according
to the Federal Aviation Administration. Olson could not be reached for
comment...

[Robert M. Gary]

Just like Richard Collins says. The chute is a great way to make the
wife feel safer about flying but most accidents happen too close to the
ground to make a real difference.

-Robert

[Darkwing]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Live video:
> http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_009171149.html
>
>
> http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/events01/media/01_526CD.txt
>
> ************************************************** ******************************
> ** Report created 1/10/2006 Record 1 **
>
> ************************************************** ******************************
>
> IDENTIFICATION
> Regis#: 526CD Make/Model: SR22 Description: SR-22
> Date: 01/09/2006 Time: 2134
>
> Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N
> Missing: N
> Damage: Destroyed
>
> LOCATION
> City: LANCASTER State: CA Country: US
>
> DESCRIPTION
> ACFT CRASHED WHILE PRACTICING A MANEUVER, THE TWO PERSONS ON
> BOARD WERE FATALLY INJURED, LANCASTER, CA
>
> INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 2
> # Crew: 2 Fat: 2 Ser: 0 Min: 0
> Unk:
> # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
> Unk:
> # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
> Unk:
>
> WEATHER: 2150Z 04012 50CM CLR 15105 A3029
>
> OTHER DATA
>
> Departed: LANCASTER, CA Dep Date: Dep. Time:
> Destination: LANCASTER, CA Flt Plan: Wx Briefing:
> Last Radio Cont: ON FINAL
> Last Clearance: CLEARED FOR THE OPTION
>
> FAA FSDO: VAN NUYS, CA (WP01) Entry date: 01/10/2006



ATTN: DOCTORS - Cirrus, the new Bonanza, get yours today!

-----------------------------------------
DW

[Larry Dighera]

On 10 Jan 2006 09:08:02 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote in . com>::

>Just like Richard Collins says. The chute is a great way to make the
>wife feel safer about flying but most accidents happen too close to the
>ground to make a real difference.
>

It would seem that a forced landing in the desert would cause little
damage; after all gliders do it routinely. As the aircraft was on
final approach at the time, an unrecoverable stall/spin may have been
a factor. Perhaps the distraction of attempted 'chute deployment was
also a factor in this mishap? At any rate, I would expect seat-belt
harness to have precluded substantial injury in a forced landing in
the desert.

How many Cirrus crashes is the NTSB concurrently investigating now?

[john smith]

42 Cirrus aircraft accidents in five years.
14 in 2005.
11 of 14 were model 22's, of of which was a G2.
3 of 14 were model 20's.
4 of 14 flights were fatal.

[Jose]

> 42 Cirrus aircraft accidents in five years.
> 14 in 2005.
> 11 of 14 were model 22's, of of which was a G2.
> 3 of 14 were model 20's.
> 4 of 14 flights were fatal.

How does this divide out with total flying hours in the Cirrus? How
does it compare with othe aircraft once normalized?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

("john smith" wrote)
> 42 Cirrus aircraft accidents in five years.
> 14 in 2005.
> 11 of 14 were model 22's, of of which was a G2.
> 3 of 14 were model 20's.
> 4 of 14 flights were fatal.


MN Dec 11 ...3 dead
NC Dec 29 ...2 dead
CA Jan 9 ....2 dead

Appears all were SR22's


Montblack

[Maule Driver]

Hmmm, I don't see any indication of a 'forced landing'. Looks like a crash.

Anyway, that doesn't look like routine glider off-field landing country.
That's, "oh ****" chew up your glider country. But no matter.

Thanks for the link

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>Just like Richard Collins says. The chute is a great way to make the
>>wife feel safer about flying but most accidents happen too close to the
>>ground to make a real difference.
>>
> It would seem that a forced landing in the desert would cause little
> damage; after all gliders do it routinely. As the aircraft was on
> final approach at the time, an unrecoverable stall/spin may have been
> a factor. Perhaps the distraction of attempted 'chute deployment was
> also a factor in this mishap? At any rate, I would expect seat-belt
> harness to have precluded substantial injury in a forced landing in
> the desert.

[John Doe]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> 42 Cirrus aircraft accidents in five years.
> 14 in 2005.
> 11 of 14 were model 22's, of of which was a G2.
> 3 of 14 were model 20's.
> 4 of 14 flights were fatal.

How does this compare with the total # of GA accidents in 2005?

I'd also like to see some data on the experience of the pilots of these
planes to see if we're once again putting high performance planes in the
hands of inexperienced pilots and wishing them luck....

[john smith]

> > 42 Cirrus aircraft accidents in five years.
> > 14 in 2005.
> > 11 of 14 were model 22's, of of which was a G2.
> > 3 of 14 were model 20's.
> > 4 of 14 flights were fatal.

> MN Dec 11 ...3 dead
> NC Dec 29 ...2 dead
> CA Jan 9 ....2 dead
> Appears all were SR22's

NTSB search did not list the Dec 29 crash.
Add one to each of the lines except the model 20's.

[Kenny]

Years ago we called it a 200 kt aircraft with a 50kt brain.

Kenny

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:33:22 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>
>
>Live video:
>http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_009171149.html
>
>
>http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/events01/media/01_526CD.txt
>
>************************************************** ******************************
> ** Report created 1/10/2006 Record 1 **
>
>************************************************** ******************************
>
> IDENTIFICATION
> Regis#: 526CD Make/Model: SR22 Description: SR-22
> Date: 01/09/2006 Time: 2134
>
> Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N
> Missing: N
> Damage: Destroyed
>
> LOCATION
> City: LANCASTER State: CA Country: US
>
> DESCRIPTION
> ACFT CRASHED WHILE PRACTICING A MANEUVER, THE TWO PERSONS ON
> BOARD WERE FATALLY INJURED, LANCASTER, CA
>
> INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 2
> # Crew: 2 Fat: 2 Ser: 0 Min: 0
>Unk:
> # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
>Unk:
> # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
>Unk:
>
> WEATHER: 2150Z 04012 50CM CLR 15105 A3029
>
> OTHER DATA
>
> Departed: LANCASTER, CA Dep Date: Dep. Time:
>Destination: LANCASTER, CA Flt Plan: Wx Briefing:
>Last Radio Cont: ON FINAL
> Last Clearance: CLEARED FOR THE OPTION
>
> FAA FSDO: VAN NUYS, CA (WP01) Entry date: 01/10/2006

[Darkwing]

"Kenny" > wrote in message
...
> Years ago we called it a 200 kt aircraft with a 50kt brain.
>
> Kenny
>


A fool and his money soon has more aircraft than he can handle.

----------------------------------------------------
DW

[cpu]

1. From the local TV news, the plane's engine quited when it turned
crosswind. It immediately dove down to the ground after engine quit.


2. Prior to the crash, it's done many touch and go on the William Fox
Field (KWJF).

3. Note that the temporature here in Southern California was over 76
degree in downtown LA. I would guess it must be close to high 80 or
even 90s in the desert. (The crash happend on 1:40PM)

4. From the TV news, local sheriff saw the chute ejected after it hit
the ground. But can't be determined by official yet.

5. The plane was a rental at VNY Gene Hudson Aviation.

My friend's SR22 had experienced engine quit last summer when he took
off from Las Vegas in a hot day, with fully loaded, with air-condition
turned on. It was caused by engine vapor lock. Fortuntely he ws high
and was close to JEAN ( 0L7). He made a successful dead stick landing
at JEAN. His wife on the side sreamed ...pull the chute..pull the
chute...but he did not attempted.

[cpu]

Please check my previous post (in the same topic) for more detail..
The egine quited when turned crosswind after several touch and goes in
a very hot day and he was low and was on training..... unlike my
friend's SR22, his engine quited caused by vapor lock but he was high
and was close to a airport. That poor guys had probably missed a
window of few seconds in a very unforgiving airplane. The instructor
had no time to save the plane after it is too late.

RIP

[Dan Luke]

"john smith" wrote:
>
> NTSB search did not list the Dec 29 crash.

I knew this pilot, a business acquaintence. Talked airplanes with him
at lunch, once. He loved his Cirrus and seemed to be a conservative,
prudent sort of guy.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:35:37 -0500, "Darkwing"
<theducksmailATyahoo.com> wrote in
>::

>A fool and his money soon has more aircraft than he can handle.

In the case of this Columbia crash, a recently certificated ATP was
PIC:
http://www.landings.com/_landings/pacflyer/nov5-2005/Nn-99-columbia-crash.html

Perhaps there's something inherently dangerous about composite
aircraft?

[Larry Dighera]

On 10 Jan 2006 22:23:21 -0800, "cpu" > wrote in
om>::

>1. From the local TV news,

Perhaps that story is available on their web-site. Can you provide
the TV station's web address?

>the plane's engine quited when it turned crosswind. It immediately
>dove down to the ground after engine quit.

That observation would be consistent with a stall/spin.

>2. Prior to the crash, it's done many touch and go on the William Fox
>Field (KWJF).
>
>3. Note that the temporature here in Southern California was over 76
>degree in downtown LA. I would guess it must be close to high 80 or
>even 90s in the desert. (The crash happend on 1:40PM)
>
>4. From the TV news, local sheriff saw the chute ejected after it hit
>the ground. But can't be determined by official yet.
>
>5. The plane was a rental at VNY Gene Hudson Aviation.
>
>My friend's SR22 had experienced engine quit last summer when he took
>off from Las Vegas in a hot day, with fully loaded, with air-condition
>turned on. It was caused by engine vapor lock. Fortuntely he ws high
>and was close to JEAN ( 0L7). He made a successful dead stick landing
>at JEAN. His wife on the side sreamed ...pull the chute..pull the
>chute...but he did not attempted.

Wouldn't turning the fuel pump on be expected to clear the vapor lock?

[Peter R.]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Wouldn't turning the fuel pump on be expected to clear the vapor lock?

Interestingly, many of the local A&P comments in response to the 2002 fatal
crash of a Cirrus north of Syracuse, NY, suggested that these high
performance engines were not designed for repeated full power/low power
settings, as what happens over numerous touch and gos or, in the case of
the 2002 crash, repeated stall practice.

--
Peter

[Darkwing]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:35:37 -0500, "Darkwing"
> <theducksmailATyahoo.com> wrote in
> >::
>
>>A fool and his money soon has more aircraft than he can handle.
>
> In the case of this Columbia crash, a recently certificated ATP was
> PIC:
> http://www.landings.com/_landings/pacflyer/nov5-2005/Nn-99-columbia-crash.html
>
> Perhaps there's something inherently dangerous about composite
> aircraft?
>

I don't know what the glide ratio is on a Cirrus or a Columbia but I can't
imagine it is really good.

--------------------------------
DW

[#1ACGuy]

>
> 5. The plane was a rental at VNY Gene Hudson Aviation.
>
That was my first thought, since they are the only ones I know of that train
in Cirrus around here, but that plane was not their tail #.
As far as I know they only have 1 SR20 for rent, and it's a different tail
#.

It was a windy day in S. Ca., which tells me the gusts were really high
around Fox (normal cenario), but news reports said wind was calm.
I have never seen a windy day in S. Ca. where it wasn't even windier at Fox.

I have been hit by gusts in that pattern that really made me pucker up.
I'm sure we'll be hearing more about it.
Alex

[Ross Richardson]

In all there are 45 in the AOPA database (Cirrus Design) starting in
1990 with the VK-30. 18 are reported as Fatal. Last entry is 12/11/2005
in Acro MN.

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2006 09:08:02 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
> wrote in . com>::
>
>
>>Just like Richard Collins says. The chute is a great way to make the
>>wife feel safer about flying but most accidents happen too close to the
>>ground to make a real difference.
>>
>
>
> It would seem that a forced landing in the desert would cause little
> damage; after all gliders do it routinely. As the aircraft was on
> final approach at the time, an unrecoverable stall/spin may have been
> a factor. Perhaps the distraction of attempted 'chute deployment was
> also a factor in this mishap? At any rate, I would expect seat-belt
> harness to have precluded substantial injury in a forced landing in
> the desert.
>
> How many Cirrus crashes is the NTSB concurrently investigating now?
>

[cpu]

They've removed the crashed aircraft, quickly. You can still see the
cached version in Google by typing N526CD and click their cached
version web content.

[cpu]

When I was given a demo flight by Cirrus, I checked their glide ratio
is...VERY IMPRESSIVE (9:1)....however, here is the catch: the best
glide speed is at 110kt. On a climb out like this (Vx may be 85), you
have only few seconds to lower the nose and prepare for a crash landing
in front of you. Otherise, stall and spin.

[cpu]

I don't think so. Boeing will make 787 almost full composite. The
problem is their design. Both Cirrus and Columbia have very high
wing-load, therefore fast speed.
Which implies its stall speed is high and poor low-speed handling.
Wingload is the total wight devided by wing area. High wing load
means per square feet of wing has to bear higher weight of the craft.
In the low speed, you can imaging that the low air pressure max out its
capability to bear the weight.

[Ron Garret]

In article m>,
"cpu" > wrote:

> When I was given a demo flight by Cirrus, I checked their glide ratio
> is...VERY IMPRESSIVE (9:1)....however, here is the catch: the best
> glide speed is at 110kt.

No, that's the normal climb speed. Best glide is 88 KIAS.

rg

[Larry Dighera]

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On 10 Jan 2006 09:08:02 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
>> wrote in . com>::
>>
>> How many Cirrus crashes is the NTSB concurrently investigating now?
>>

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:29:29 -0600, Ross Richardson
> wrote in
>::

>In all there are 45 in the AOPA database

Have you got a URL for that?

>(Cirrus Design) starting in 1990 with the VK-30.
>18 are reported as Fatal. Last entry is 12/11/2005
>in Acro MN.
>

I suppose about one fatal mishap per year is not too alarming. But it
just feels like there have been more lately. I still wonder how many
final Cirrus crash reports the NTSB has yet to issue.

[Darkwing]

"cpu" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>I don't think so. Boeing will make 787 almost full composite. The
> problem is their design. Both Cirrus and Columbia have very high
> wing-load, therefore fast speed.
> Which implies its stall speed is high and poor low-speed handling.
> Wingload is the total wight devided by wing area. High wing load
> means per square feet of wing has to bear higher weight of the craft.
> In the low speed, you can imaging that the low air pressure max out its
> capability to bear the weight.
>

I agree. I don't think it's a design issue, I think it is just at slow and
low speed there isn't much margin AND the chute is useless at that phase.

----------------------------------------------------
DW

[cpu]

> I don't think so. Boeing will make 787 almost full composite.

I was referring to the "Perhaps there's something inherently dangerous
about composite
aircraft...".

Also I should not say "The problem is their design. ". It is not
really a "problem" but a "characteristic". As a pilot, you have to
understand the behavior of a aircraft. But in this case, I would say
the window margin is really short.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:46:42 -0800, "#1ACGuy" >
wrote in >::

>>
>> 5. The plane was a rental at VNY Gene Hudson Aviation.
>>
>That was my first thought, since they are the only ones I know of that train
>in Cirrus around here, but that plane was not their tail #.

http://www.genehudson.com/ghft/ac4rent.html
Aircraft Rental
We offer the following aircraft for rental: 2003 Cirrus SR22 N224PR
2005 Cirrus SR20 N526CD
2005 Cirrus SR20 N64CD
1978 Cessna T210 N44HR

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2005 Cirrus SR20 Rate: $200/hr
Registration No: N562CD
Serial No.: 1545


General:
Factory NEW as of August 26, 2005
Fuselage, wings, stabilizers: Oven-cured pre-preg composite
Control surfaces: aluminum
Seats: 4
Power control: Single lever controls both throttle and propeller
Emergency Safety System: BRS CAPS (Cirrus Airplane Parachute System)
Secondary Safety System: Front Seat Belt Airbags
Buses: Dual redundant, with emergency cross-over capability
Alternators: Dual, 60amp/20amp
Batteries: Dual, independent
Engine:
TCM IO-360-ES
200 h.p. @ 2700 rpm
3-blade ‘Scimitar’ constant-speed propeller
Avionics:
Primary Flight Display (PFD):
Avidyne Entegra
10.4 full-color
All solid-state (MMIC) attitude and heading reference (AHARS)
Integrated air data computer, with continuous display of wind
direction and velocity; indicated airspeed, true airspeed and
groundspeed
Magnetometer: full-time, all-attitude sensing of magnetic north
Attitude, altitude and vertical speed displays
Trend indicators for airspeed and altitude
Heading, navigation (3 separate nav sources displayed simultaneously)
Heading, altitude and vertical speed 'bugs', interfaced to autopilot
Autopilot mode annunciators
Projected track indicator
Multi-Function Display (MFD)
Avidyne FlightMax EX5000C
10.4" full-color color moving map
Flight plan with color-coded active and next legs
Airports, navaids, intersections and obstacles database
Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning [TAWS/EGPWS] w/audio alerts
L3 Stormscope lightning detection system
Satellite-based in-flight XM weather including METARs, uplinked
weather radar
Fuel management (fuel flow, fuel on board, fuel predicted remaining at
destination)
Engine management: Engine parameters, temperatures; lean assist
Backup instruments: airspeed, altitude and attitude indicators
Navigation: Dual Garmin GNS430 GPS/VOR/LOC/GS receivers,
IFR certified Autopilot: S-Tec System 55X Two axis
Completely separate from PFD/attitude indicators; acts as a backup to
flight instrument failure
Heading, Nav, GPSS, and Approach modes interfaced to PFD
Vertical speed hold, altitude pre-select, altitude hold, glideslope
coupling
Audio Panel: Garmin GMA340
Built-in four-place intercom with pilot/crew isolation
Auxiliary jack for entertainment system input
Marker beacon receiver with mute
Optional Equipment:
Rosen Sun Visors
Rental:
High Performance Glass Cockpit Trainer
Available for dual or solo
Student Pilot or better
Cirrus Transition Course (taught by us) or 10 hours make/model plus
checkout
Online Scheduling
Aircraft Checkout Questions (PDF File)

Tel: 818-382-4791
7949 Woodley Ave
Van Nuys, California 914

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
> I suppose about one fatal mishap per year is not too alarming. But it
> just feels like there have been more lately. I still wonder how many
> final Cirrus crash reports the NTSB has yet to issue.

>>(Cirrus Design) starting in 1990 with the VK-30. 18 are reported as Fatal.


First customer delivery of the SR20 was 1999, according to Cirrus site. Mid
'99 according to other sites.

SR22 was Certified in 2000 or 2001 - different web pages say different
things. First customer delivery ...2001? 7 had been delivered as of May
2001.
http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/2001/feat0105.html

Starting in Jan 2000, we're in a 6 year bracket with the planes in question.


Montblack

[Newps]

Baloney. Have you even tried this? Let's say you have the plane
trimmed for an 85 kt climb. Now remove power. What happens? The nose
will come down as the plane attempts to maintain 85 kts, all without any
input from you. You have a lot more time than you think.



cpu wrote:
> When I was given a demo flight by Cirrus, I checked their glide ratio
> is...VERY IMPRESSIVE (9:1)....however, here is the catch: the best
> glide speed is at 110kt. On a climb out like this (Vx may be 85), you
> have only few seconds to lower the nose and prepare for a crash landing
> in front of you. Otherise, stall and spin.
>

[cpu]

> Baloney. Have you even tried this? Let's say you have the plane
>trimmed for an 85 kt climb. Now remove power. What happens? The nose
>will come down as the plane attempts to maintain 85 kts, all without any
>input from you. You have a lot more time than you think.

I did not try engine fail practice in Cirrus. However, every pilot
knows during initial climb out if engine fail, you have to lower the
noise IMMEDIATELY ON ANY SEL AIRCRAFT. Countless such take off crash
cases not limit to Cirrus. You can go to AOPA's Air Safety Foundation
to read on the training material about how to do during take off engine
fail. I believe while that SR-20 turned crosswind, he did not reach
800 feet AGL.... you have only seconds to choice a landing spot even
if you lower the nose correctly. I don't understand what do you mean
"a lot of time", basically, you don't have "a lot of time". That is
also proved by the witness of the crash. (from engine quit to crash
only took a few seconds).

You probably did that 85 kt well-trimmed power loss in higher altitude
(in a practice area). I don't think you did this in 500 feet AGL,
didn't you? (otherwise you won't say you will have "plenty" of time).

[George Patterson]

cpu wrote:

> I did not try engine fail practice in Cirrus. However, every pilot
> knows during initial climb out if engine fail, you have to lower the
> noise IMMEDIATELY ON ANY SEL AIRCRAFT.

Yeah, we get told that. In fact, however, the nose will drop all by itself in
most light aircraft. If the pilot doesn't stop it from doing so. The problem is
that it takes a real effort of will on the part of the pilot to avoid applying
back pressure on the yoke in an attempt to maintain attitude. My Maule was so
sensitive to power application, that you could stall the aircraft by applying
power for a go-around.

Try it sometime.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[cpu]

> Yeah, we get told that. In fact, however, the nose will drop all by itself in
most light aircraft. If the pilot doesn't stop it from doing so.

Your point is well taken. No question about that. From ASF's
material, a pilot will take 4 to 10 seonds to "realize" or "register"
the trouble. So there isn't really much time left. Plus the
instructor usually will take over when he "feels" the student can't
handle it. But in a less-forgiving aircraft, the instructor must be
very fast and determined, otherwise, it can cause death like this.

[#1ACGuy]

That's tragic. Hitting a little close to home for me. I'll bet I met the
instructor at the last Cirrus demo in Van Nuys. I noticed only one other
instructor on the web site now too, so yeah, they removed her name already.
That's if it is who I think it is.
The local news will probably release the names in the next couple days.
Alex
"cpu" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> They've removed the crashed aircraft, quickly. You can still see the
> cached version in Google by typing N526CD and click their cached
> version web content.
>

[[email protected]]

#1ACGuy wrote:
> That's tragic. Hitting a little close to home for me. I'll bet I met the
> instructor at the last Cirrus demo in Van Nuys. I noticed only one other
> instructor on the web site now too, so yeah, they removed her name already.
> That's if it is who I think it is.

It's not, she is alive and well, checked in on a message board right
away.
It was a male instructor I am told. (not Gene Hudson)

> The local news will probably release the names in the next couple days.
The student is a husband and a father of a small child.
My friend called his wife the same night and found out it was him.

It tears your heart out.
We all don't know what happened, and we may never know.

You can just barely understand how the family must feel. This was
supposed to be the best and newest and the safest. Spared no expense.
And then this.

[cpu]

It's hard to hear one close to home. There were familiar faces in my
home field, the next day they were gone (hit the radio tower near
airport, night VFR went terribly wrong....etc.)

Been attended one of the FAA Wings seminar at Gene's school. One of
the best ones. My heart and thoughts go to the families and love ones
of deceased. RIP

[[email protected]]

>>>On a climb out like this (Vx may be 85), you
have only few seconds to lower the nose and prepare for a crash landing

in front of you. Otherise, stall and spin. <<<

So, if you don't lower the nose immediately the plane will
*automatically* stall and spin? I doubt it, seeing as the stall would
have to be uncoordinated and the Cirrus has wing cuffs to make it
spin-resistant and keep the ailerons flying through the stall.

I went on a 1 hour CFI demo in a SR22-GTS last summer and was
thoroughly impressed with the plane. I discussed the plane's accident
history witht the demo pilot and his take (like most I think) is that
it's generally unfamiliarity with the plane aggravated by
low-time/inexperienced pilots that's been the root of most of these
accidents. With such little drag the plane shoud glide quite well
although at a higher speed than other GA singles.

Wooly

[Maule Driver]

per George's point, one should try it in whatever one flies rather than
beleive what is written. There is no question that many people will
react incorrectly but my experience is that it's not quite the way it is
written up.

4 to 10 seconds is an eternity that will lead to eternity.... I suggest
that one knows that their (single) engine quit on takeoff immediately
and one will tend to react quickly.

The inexperienced may immediately try to hold the nose where it was -
that will stall/spin them in.

The well read but inexperienced may immediately try to dump the nose too
quickly and overshoot best glide. This will lose total energy and the
"500 foot turn and return to the airport" will be quite impossible.

Practice in a particular a/c will be a revelation to many. First, my
experience suggests that on some a/c, the nose will immediately seek
trim speed and the nose will fall. Presuming an optimal climb from
takeoff, you will probably need to slow a bit for max level glide. So a
little pull will be called for during this manuever. If a turn is
required, especially a 180, an immediate 'sharp' bank is required. The
bank needs to be well beyond a standard rate, the nose will have to be
held up to make it.

If you practice it, it is quite amazing what can be done in terms of a
return to airport from less than pattern altitude. If you don't
practice it, it is quite amazing how far short you will be - or how fast
the stall spin will develop.

If you don't practice, put the nose in a steep final approach attitude -
cross check the airspeed and fly to a landing within 20 degrees of you
heading.

The Cirrus is a pretty hot ship it seems. It's not about glass, it's
about wing loading.

cpu wrote:
>>Yeah, we get told that. In fact, however, the nose will drop all by itself in
>
> most light aircraft. If the pilot doesn't stop it from doing so.
>
> Your point is well taken. No question about that. From ASF's
> material, a pilot will take 4 to 10 seonds to "realize" or "register"
> the trouble. So there isn't really much time left. Plus the
> instructor usually will take over when he "feels" the student can't
> handle it. But in a less-forgiving aircraft, the instructor must be
> very fast and determined, otherwise, it can cause death like this.
>

[Montblack]

wrote)
> I went on a 1 hour CFI demo in a SR22-GTS last summer and was thoroughly
> impressed with the plane. I discussed the plane's accident history witht
> the demo pilot and his take (like most I think) is that it's generally
> unfamiliarity with the plane aggravated by low-time/inexperienced pilots
> that's been the root of most of these accidents.


I thought a Cirrus demo pilot died in a Cirrus a year or two ago. Not the
test pilot in '99, but a factory designated demo safety pilot rep - whatever
they're called.


Montblack

[[email protected]]

>>>I thought a Cirrus demo pilot died in a Cirrus a year or two ago. Not the
test pilot in '99, but a factory designated demo safety pilot rep -
whatever
they're called.<<<

I hadn't heard of that - Hmmm...if so, that wouldn't be very good PR
would it?

Wooly

[Newps]

cpu wrote:


>
>
> I did not try engine fail practice in Cirrus. However, every pilot
> knows during initial climb out if engine fail, you have to lower the
> noise IMMEDIATELY ON ANY SEL AIRCRAFT.

Again, baloney. The plane will stay at the trimmed airspeed until it
hits the ground. You may want to push the nose over to hit a certain
spot but it is not necessary to keep the plane in the air.


Countless such take off crash
> cases not limit to Cirrus. You can go to AOPA's Air Safety Foundation
> to read on the training material about how to do during take off engine
> fail. I believe while that SR-20 turned crosswind, he did not reach
> 800 feet AGL.... you have only seconds to choice a landing spot even
> if you lower the nose correctly.

From 800 feet??? I thought you were talking close to the ground. When
I had my 182 I needed 450 feet to return to the runway I took off from,
landing opposite direction. From 800 feet I will make a pattern of it
and land the same way I took off.


I don't understand what do you mean
> "a lot of time", basically, you don't have "a lot of time".

That of course is a relative term but from 800 feet you will have over a
minute before you hit the ground.


That is
> also proved by the witness of the crash. (from engine quit to crash
> only took a few seconds).

The only way to hit the ground within a few seconds from 800 feet is to
roll the plane over and aim it straight at the ground.


>
> You probably did that 85 kt well-trimmed power loss in higher altitude
> (in a practice area). I don't think you did this in 500 feet AGL,
> didn't you? (otherwise you won't say you will have "plenty" of time).

The amount of time it takes to go from 800 AGL to 0 AGL is the same as
from 2000 AGL to 1200 AGL.

[Newps]

Maule Driver wrote:

First, my
> experience suggests that on some a/c, the nose will immediately seek
> trim speed and the nose will fall.

What aircraft does not seek its trimmed airspeed?

[Maule Driver]

None that I know of. I just didn't want to argue the point.

But now that you brought it up, do *all* a/c seek the same rim speed if
the engine quits versus full climb power? I assume so but honestly
don't know for sure (e.g. does a T-tail respond a bit differently than a
'convential' tail)

Newps wrote:

> Maule Driver wrote:
>> my experience suggests that on some a/c, the nose will immediately seek
>> trim speed and the nose will fall.
>
> What aircraft does not seek its trimmed airspeed?
>
>

[Maule Driver]

Newps wrote:
> cpu wrote:
>> I did not try engine fail practice in Cirrus. However, every pilot
>> knows during initial climb out if engine fail, you have to lower the
>> noise IMMEDIATELY ON ANY SEL AIRCRAFT.
>
> Again, baloney. The plane will stay at the trimmed airspeed until it
> hits the ground. You may want to push the nose over to hit a certain
> spot but it is not necessary to keep the plane in the air.
>
Well, it will seek it's trim speed but hands-off, most if not all
aircraft will overshoot it a bit before finding it in the case of sudden
power loss. But agree with the point less stridently taken.

[Newps]

The airplane will pitch to its trimmed speed. Always. How can it not?

Maule Driver wrote:
> None that I know of. I just didn't want to argue the point.
>
> But now that you brought it up, do *all* a/c seek the same rim speed if
> the engine quits versus full climb power? I assume so but honestly
> don't know for sure (e.g. does a T-tail respond a bit differently than a
> 'convential' tail)
>
> Newps wrote:
>
>> Maule Driver wrote:
>>
>>> my experience suggests that on some a/c, the nose will immediately
>>> seek trim speed and the nose will fall.
>>
>>
>> What aircraft does not seek its trimmed airspeed?
>>
>>

[Maule Driver]

wrote:
> I went on a 1 hour CFI demo in a SR22-GTS last summer and was
> thoroughly impressed with the plane. I discussed the plane's accident
> history witht the demo pilot and his take (like most I think) is that
> it's generally unfamiliarity with the plane aggravated by
> low-time/inexperienced pilots that's been the root of most of these
> accidents. With such little drag the plane shoud glide quite well
> although at a higher speed than other GA singles.
>
> Wooly
>
I would point to 'higher wing loading' rather than 'low drag' as the
thing that makes it both hotter than a C182 and a fast glider.

Picking some quick numbers off a few Google searches:
C182 - 17.8 lbs/sf
S22 - 23.5 lbs/sf
How about a 'Bo?
P35 - 17.2 lbs/sf (interesting)

[Morgans]

"Maule Driver" > wrote
>
> The Cirrus is a pretty hot ship it seems. It's not about glass, it's
> about wing loading.


AND the lack of drag to slow it down, once it is pointed back down, IMHO.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Newps" > wrote

> The airplane will pitch to its trimmed speed. Always. How can it not?

But how quickly will it do so? Will some designs do so, more rapidly than
others?

Not arguing, just asking.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Newps" > wrote
>
> From 800 feet??? I thought you were talking close to the ground. When I
> had my 182 I needed 450 feet to return to the runway I took off from,
> landing opposite direction. From 800 feet I will make a pattern of it and
> land the same way I took off.


That sounds suspect as an over generalization, to me. A 152 will take a lot
more time to descend that same altidude, vs a 182, or a sr-22, right?

> That of course is a relative term but from 800 feet you will have over a
> minute before you hit the ground.

Two minutes with a 152, then?

The time to get your head wrapped around the situation would seem, to me, to
be an important factor. It should be enough for both cases, but how much
lower is still enough, for the 152 brain in a sr-22?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Montblack" > wrote>
>
> I thought a Cirrus demo pilot died in a Cirrus a year or two ago. Not the
> test pilot in '99, but a factory designated demo safety pilot rep -
> whatever they're called.

Wasn't that a gross mechanical failure, or something like that, or am I
thinking of something else, "again."

Damn, I hate CRS!
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:

>
> "Newps" > wrote
>
>> The airplane will pitch to its trimmed speed. Always. How can it not?
>
>
> But how quickly will it do so? Will some designs do so, more rapidly
> than others?
>
> Not arguing, just asking.

The only experience I have is with the 182 I had and my current Bonanza.
Both will stay at whatever speed it is trimmed for, no hunting around.
I would imagine the 172 is the same and I know the Debonair is the
same because, well, it's the same plane.

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:

>
> "Newps" > wrote
>
>>
>> From 800 feet??? I thought you were talking close to the ground.
>> When I had my 182 I needed 450 feet to return to the runway I took off
>> from, landing opposite direction. From 800 feet I will make a pattern
>> of it and land the same way I took off.
>
>
>
> That sounds suspect as an over generalization, to me. A 152 will take a
> lot more time to descend that same altidude, vs a 182, or a sr-22, right?

I have never flown a 152 so I don't know exactly how it flies. However
it is a strutted Cessna so I would fly it the same as the 182. The
poster stated that they were turning downwind at 800 feet. Worst case
there being no wind I would continue on downwind until one of two things
happens. I get to 300 AGL or I get to the approach end of the runway.
Never go past the approach end of the runway before turning base. Once
turning base it is a constant bank turn at 80 mph IAS. Roll out over
the runway and land. I do this nearly every time at my home airport
because I use the small runway and there is rarely traffic. Half flaps
at midfield when the runway is made and full flaps on base.


>
>> That of course is a relative term but from 800 feet you will have over
>> a minute before you hit the ground.
>
>
> Two minutes with a 152, then?

I don't know, what is the fpm descent that you would get in a 152? In
the 182 it was about 500-600 at 80 mph.

[cpu]

> I had my 182 I needed 450 feet to

I thought we are talking abour SR20. I flew a lot of 182RG...but it is
not a SR20. You are right on 182 but the one crashed is not your 182.


>From many test report, SR20 is even worse than SR22 on the aloaf. Our
CSI (Cirrus Standardized Instructor) experienced several wing drop
events during stall practices in a Cirrus during past few years. This
plane is not as stable as your 182 at very low speed.

Like many other posts, we have to respect each type and model that has
their own charecterestic and envolope. Yeh, 182 and many other planes
including gliders can adjust its own pitch to adapt power
change...quickly and in almost all kind of pitch and power
combinations. But it may not be the case for some other airplanes (in
certain pitch and power combination). One example I can make is that a
short-wing aerobatic aircraft such as Sukhoi 26 in a high-pitch
low-speed climb out and then pull the power off, what will happend?
Yeh the nose will drop dramatically, but will it remain stable without
any control input? will it remaining its climb out speed when it start
to dive? (again, no control input is allowed in your case). I don't
think so.

[cpu]

> So, if you don't lower the nose immediately the plane will
*automatically* stall and spin? I doubt it,

No, of course not. But you beter do somthing to keep the plane in its
design envolope.
SR20 is not as stable as SR22 as many people reported.

[cpu]

> it's generally unfamiliarity with the plane aggravated by
low-time/inexperienced pilots that's been the root of most of these
accidents. With such little drag the plane shoud glide quite well
although at a higher speed than other GA singles.

Yeh, like there is the other guy keep preaching his 182 experience for
a Cirrus. Some reports says a pilot get his master training
completely in a Cirrus will have lower risk than a pilot move up to a
Cirrus. I truely believe that.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"cpu" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I had my 182 I needed 450 feet to
>
> I thought we are talking abour SR20. I flew a lot of 182RG...but it is
> not a SR20. You are right on 182 but the one crashed is not your 182.
>
>
>>From many test report, SR20 is even worse than SR22 on the aloaf. Our
> CSI (Cirrus Standardized Instructor) experienced several wing drop
> events during stall practices in a Cirrus during past few years. This
> plane is not as stable as your 182 at very low speed.
>
> Like many other posts, we have to respect each type and model that has
> their own charecterestic and envolope. Yeh, 182 and many other planes
> including gliders can adjust its own pitch to adapt power
> change...quickly and in almost all kind of pitch and power
> combinations. But it may not be the case for some other airplanes (in
> certain pitch and power combination). One example I can make is that a
> short-wing aerobatic aircraft such as Sukhoi 26 in a high-pitch
> low-speed climb out and then pull the power off, what will happend?
> Yeh the nose will drop dramatically, but will it remain stable without
> any control input? will it remaining its climb out speed when it start
> to dive? (again, no control input is allowed in your case). I don't
> think so.
>


Assuming you have the S-26 trimmed for a given speed when the power is
pulled at some point it will stabilize at the speed it was trimed for. There
is one exception to this rule. The ground must not get in the way first.
Should that happen all aircraft have an auto-trim function.

[cpu]

>Assuming you have the S-26 trimmed for a given speed when the power is
>pulled at some point it will stabilize at the ....

Well, your comment is correct only when the diving S-26 stability is in
the envelope. If its current stability is out of the envelope, it may
never reach its former trimed speed (or stable state). If you've
readed the basic air dynamic in the ATP or commercial exam materials,
you know there are 2 basic stabilities of an aircraft...dynamic and
static stability. These 2 factors (and others) determine the
performance envelope of an aircraft. If the air dynamic is that
simple, all my friends in JPL and Boeing will be out of jobs by now.

Why the most popular aircraft such as 182 (epscially most high-wings)
will fall to its trim speed when power is lost because its stability
envelope is large. So when power factor changed, in most of cases, its
static stability will let the aircraft fall back into its balance
state. Not all the aircrafts like this, you can proove it by common
sense. (think about other types and models, jets, B2 bumber...etc.)

[Larry Dighera]

More information:

Peter Lopez was kind enough to send me this link:
http://www.avpress.com/n/12/0112_s6.hts#thetop#thetop

Shortly before the accident, the pilot radioed the tower
requesting permission to simulate an emergency situation in which
the engine stops shortly after takeoff and the pilot must make an
emergency landing. In this simulation, the pilot cuts back on the
engine power, similar to a driver taking his foot of the gas
pedal, but the engine does not stop completely, Jones said.

The aircraft made a low approach to the airport but did not touch
down on the runway, then proceeded with the simulation, Jones
said.

The first attempt was apparently successful, and the pilot
requested permission for a second attempt.

It was in making the second attempt that the accident occurred, he
said.

The airplane crashed about two miles from the airfield, at 40th
Street West and Avenue F.

[pilotmaker]

Completely based on assumptions here, I read this as practicing the
'turnaround' maneuver after an engine failure on takeoff.
You know, the manuever that kills lots of pilots every year, the
maneuver that you are taught never to attempt?

If that is true, I would like to know if the Cirrus training curriculum
or the Gene Hudson curriculum calls for this. I wonder how many times
this went well with other students before this had to go bad one day
and result in a crash.

Well, I guess it went well once in this case, the second time it did
not. (if indeed this was the reason, we all don't know)
I wonder who else is teaching students these circus stunts out there.

[cpu]

It is very sad that the cover story of this month's (January) Aviation
Safety Magazine (http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com) is exactly
talking about that. Here I quote a small portion of this article:

By Rich Stowell (Aviation Safety Magzine, January 2006)

Turnbacks Reconsidered
If an engine quits on takeoff, where you go is less important than how
you arrive. A straight-ahead landing remains the best low-risk option.

.......
Each year some pilots try the turnback maneuver after an engine failure
and succeed while others don't.
.......
One hundred percent of the attempts to proceed straight ahead (35/35)
resulted in successful outcomes.....By contrast, only 62 percent of all
of the attempted turnbacks were successful (69/112).
......
Compared to landing straight ahead, a Canadian study of stall/spin
accidents over a 10-year period assessed the risk of death or serious
injury as eight times (8X !!!!!) greater when a turnback to the airport
was attempted.
.....

-------------
I strongly recommand Aviation Safety Magazine. I am its loyal reader.
This is the second time in 1.5 year that I read its monthly article
and then the exactly NO NO fatal accident described in the article
happend.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:51:09 GMT, john smith > wrote in
>::

>42 Cirrus aircraft accidents in five years.
>14 in 2005.
>11 of 14 were model 22's, of of which was a G2.
>3 of 14 were model 20's.
>4 of 14 flights were fatal.

With all the Cirrus accidents, it seems they've started including
additional safety features in addition to the airframe parachute
system:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/safety/

Terrain Awareness
TAWS (Terrain Awareness Warning System), now a standard
installation on all CIRRUS SRV, SR20 and SR22 aircraft, helps keep
you clear of terrain and obstacles.

Airbag Seatbelts
AmSafe Aviation™ airbag seatbelt restraints are now part of the
new SAFETY COMES STANDARD installation program at CIRRUS.
CIRRUS includes the airbags to help ensure greater protection for
the pilot and front-seat passenger in the event of an incident.

[Roger]

On 10 Jan 2006 22:23:21 -0800, "cpu" > wrote:

>1. From the local TV news, the plane's engine quited when it turned
>crosswind. It immediately dove down to the ground after engine quit.
>
Engine quitting does not normally cause an airplane to dive to the
ground but pilot screwing pooch does.

As Larry said, sounds like stall spin.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>2. Prior to the crash, it's done many touch and go on the William Fox
>Field (KWJF).
>
>3. Note that the temporature here in Southern California was over 76
>degree in downtown LA. I would guess it must be close to high 80 or
>even 90s in the desert. (The crash happend on 1:40PM)
>
>4. From the TV news, local sheriff saw the chute ejected after it hit
>the ground. But can't be determined by official yet.
>
>5. The plane was a rental at VNY Gene Hudson Aviation.
>
>My friend's SR22 had experienced engine quit last summer when he took
>off from Las Vegas in a hot day, with fully loaded, with air-condition
>turned on. It was caused by engine vapor lock. Fortuntely he ws high
>and was close to JEAN ( 0L7). He made a successful dead stick landing
>at JEAN. His wife on the side sreamed ...pull the chute..pull the
>chute...but he did not attempted.