I think I know why so many Cirrus' crash

[Ron Lee]

Coming back from KCOS to 00V today several aircraft were in the
pattern for runway 33 and some people wanted runway 15 since the winds
were at the changeover point. With one or two at the runup area for
runway 15 I just went east until the fiasco was sorted out (I made
several position reports since people were all over).

Once that happened I announced my intentions (enter left downwind for
15) about 7-8 miles out and not long after that a Cirrus announced he
was 10 miles out. When I was on left downwind the Cirrus pilot
broadcast that he was on about 4 mile base for 15. I "assumed" he
meant downwind. Then when I was about to turn base he called out four
mile FINAL for 15. I saw a plane in that area and turned base
(calling it out by radio of course)

He asked if I was cutting in front of him and I stated "Looks like
it."

Soon thereafter I decided that I was too fast so went around then when
on downwind again stated that his (Cirrus "pilot") pattern entry was
bad. His response was "I called it out." I told him that it was not
good when other planes are using a standard pattern. Had he been the
only one around I would not have cared.

Thus my assessment is that Cirrus pilots have too much money and
inadequate pilot skills/common sense. Other fatal crashes just add to
this perception.

Ron Lee

[Andrew Gideon]

Ron Lee wrote:

> Thus my assessment is that Cirrus pilots have too much money and
> inadequate pilot skills/common sense. Other fatal crashes just add to
> this perception.
>

A problem with your extrapolation from this single data point is that I know
someone that has similarly poor pattern behavior but who is a 182 owner.

- Andrew

[Casey Wilson]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Coming back from KCOS to 00V today several aircraft were in the
> pattern for runway 33 and some people...

< major deletion>

> ...ey and
> inadequate pilot skills/common sense. Other fatal crashes just add to
> this perception.
>
> Ron Lee
>
...and you, of course, did nothing wrong????

[Michael Ware]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
///////
> He asked if I was cutting in front of him and I stated "Looks like
> it."

Proper response: 'Using recommended proocedure.'

> Ron Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Tony]

Ron, a serious question here. I appreciate good judgement when you
chose to go around being too fast somewhere on final, but would you say
a few words as to what might have set up that circumstance?

Was it a short runway, or was someone slow getting off the active, or
did you just come in too hot to put enough spacing between you and the
Cirrus?

[Kyle Boatright]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Coming back from KCOS to 00V today several aircraft were in the
> pattern for runway 33 and some people wanted runway 15 since the winds
> were at the changeover point. With one or two at the runup area for
> runway 15 I just went east until the fiasco was sorted out (I made
> several position reports since people were all over).
>
> Once that happened I announced my intentions (enter left downwind for
> 15) about 7-8 miles out and not long after that a Cirrus announced he
> was 10 miles out. When I was on left downwind the Cirrus pilot
> broadcast that he was on about 4 mile base for 15. I "assumed" he
> meant downwind. Then when I was about to turn base he called out four
> mile FINAL for 15. I saw a plane in that area and turned base
> (calling it out by radio of course)
>
> He asked if I was cutting in front of him and I stated "Looks like
> it."
>
> Soon thereafter I decided that I was too fast so went around then when
> on downwind again stated that his (Cirrus "pilot") pattern entry was
> bad. His response was "I called it out." I told him that it was not
> good when other planes are using a standard pattern. Had he been the
> only one around I would not have cared.
>
> Thus my assessment is that Cirrus pilots have too much money and
> inadequate pilot skills/common sense. Other fatal crashes just add to
> this perception.
>
> Ron Lee

Few things bother me more than someone who comes barreling through the
pattern, expecting the sky to miraculously clear before him. My home field
is fairly busy on weekends and there is *always* someone who thinks his time
is more valuable than everyone else's and pulls this kind of stunt.
Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do, unless you want to call the
other guy out on the radio or do something really stupid like genuinely
crowd him in the pattern...

Beyond that, we get our share of turbine traffic. It appears that part of
the training for flying a kerosene burner is that you are *required* to land
straight in, no matter how many airplanes are in the pattern.

KB

[George Patterson]

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> It appears that part of
> the training for flying a kerosene burner is that you are *required* to land
> straight in, no matter how many airplanes are in the pattern.

Well, they pretty much are required to do that. It's safer to come straight in
than to try to land using the large pattern they would have to fly. You sure
can't fly the same pattern in a Citation that I can in a Maule.

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

[Michael Ware]

I got landing clearance once, 'Cessna 1234Z clear to land, short approach,
Hawker traffic five mile final'.
'Unable, continuing downwind'

sure, could have cut the throttle, dropped the flaps and swooped in real
tight, but it really isn't worth the minute or two saved to get bunched up.
Just relax and watch the jet traffic go by.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:dtjyf.12314$sq.10452@trnddc01...
> Well, they pretty much are required to do that. It's safer to come
straight in
> than to try to land using the large pattern they would have to fly. You
sure
> can't fly the same pattern in a Citation that I can in a Maule.
>
> George Patterson
> Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong
to
> your slightly older self.

[Jay Honeck]

> Thus my assessment is that Cirrus pilots have too much money and
> inadequate pilot skills/common sense. Other fatal crashes just add to
> this perception.

What you are seeing isn't anything specific to the Cirrus.

Jerks are jerks.

Rich jerks with high performance planes are dangerous.

Rich jerks flying high performance planes too infrequently are disasters
waiting to happen.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[darthpup]

Sort of like SUV owners. I once had a plane fly under me and land when
I was a mile from touch down at Bader, Atlantic City. Just turned to
the left and went around again.
Homo sapiens is generally a very foolish species.

[John Huthmaker]

Congratulations. I have been waiting for your post since you told us last
week of your plans. Welcome to the wonderful world of "Real" flying;
something so many people think is an impossible feat.

--
John Huthmaker
PPL-SEL P-28-161

http://www.cogentnetworking.com
"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Coming back from KCOS to 00V today several aircraft were in the
> pattern for runway 33 and some people wanted runway 15 since the winds
> were at the changeover point. With one or two at the runup area for
> runway 15 I just went east until the fiasco was sorted out (I made
> several position reports since people were all over).
>
> Once that happened I announced my intentions (enter left downwind for
> 15) about 7-8 miles out and not long after that a Cirrus announced he
> was 10 miles out. When I was on left downwind the Cirrus pilot
> broadcast that he was on about 4 mile base for 15. I "assumed" he
> meant downwind. Then when I was about to turn base he called out four
> mile FINAL for 15. I saw a plane in that area and turned base
> (calling it out by radio of course)
>
> He asked if I was cutting in front of him and I stated "Looks like
> it."
>
> Soon thereafter I decided that I was too fast so went around then when
> on downwind again stated that his (Cirrus "pilot") pattern entry was
> bad. His response was "I called it out." I told him that it was not
> good when other planes are using a standard pattern. Had he been the
> only one around I would not have cared.
>
> Thus my assessment is that Cirrus pilots have too much money and
> inadequate pilot skills/common sense. Other fatal crashes just add to
> this perception.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[George Patterson]

Michael Ware wrote:

> I got landing clearance once, 'Cessna 1234Z clear to land, short approach,
> Hawker traffic five mile final'.
> 'Unable, continuing downwind'

I got a takeoff clearance like that once. Something big belonging to some
airline was on five mile final. I figured that gave me about 2 minutes to get
out of his way. By the time he hit the ground, I was about 1,000' up.

Landing's a whole different ball game, though. I think I would've stayed on
downwind too.

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

[Ron Lee]

"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>> Coming back from KCOS to 00V today several aircraft were in the
>> pattern for runway 33 and some people...
>
> < major deletion>
>
>> ...ey and
>> inadequate pilot skills/common sense. Other fatal crashes just add to
>> this perception.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>>
> ...and you, of course, did nothing wrong????

Other than letting the issue of watching for other traffic ...
particularly the Cirrus .. distract me from being at a better
airpseed. NO The go around was the proper response to the "excess"
airspeed.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"Tony" > wrote:

>Ron, a serious question here. I appreciate good judgement when you
>chose to go around being too fast somewhere on final, but would you say
>a few words as to what might have set up that circumstance?
>
>Was it a short runway, or was someone slow getting off the active, or
>did you just come in too hot to put enough spacing between you and the
>Cirrus?

I was distracted by the traffic issues and "see and avoid a collision"
took precedence over optimal airspeed management. This was
particularly relevant when I turned base and was looking for someone
on final who should not have been there; assessing the distance of
that aircraft and speed for relevance to my normal approach. No
excuse but it was a factor and my best judgement was to go-around
rather than attempt to salvage a poor approach.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"John Huthmaker" > wrote:

>Congratulations. I have been waiting for your post since you told us last
>week of your plans. Welcome to the wonderful world of "Real" flying;
>something so many people think is an impossible feat.
>
>--
>John Huthmaker

Care to explain what you are talking about?

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

Andrew Gideon > wrote:

>Ron Lee wrote:
>
>> Thus my assessment is that Cirrus pilots have too much money and
>> inadequate pilot skills/common sense. Other fatal crashes just add to
>> this perception.
>>
>
>A problem with your extrapolation from this single data point is that I know
>someone that has similarly poor pattern behavior but who is a 182 owner.
>
> - Andrew

Andrew, I have had concerns about Cirrus pilots after reading of some
of the parachute deployments. This just adds fuel even if not
statistically significant.

Ron Lee

[Peter R.]

Ron Lee > wrote:

> Care to explain what you are talking about?

I would suspect that he meant to reply to the thread of the individual who
just took his first discovery flight, elsewhere in this newsgroup.

--
Peter

[Scott D]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:16:05 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote:

>Coming back from KCOS to 00V today several aircraft were in the
>pattern for runway 33 and some people wanted runway 15 since the winds
>were at the changeover point. With one or two at the runup area for
>runway 15 I just went east until the fiasco was sorted out (I made
>several position reports since people were all over).

Hey Ron, I flew out of 00V today as well. We took off around 1030ish
and came back around 1230ish. There was a SR-22 in the pattern from
the time we were preflighting till we took off. If it was the same
one, and I am assuming it was, it appeared to me that he was a fairly
new pilot as well. I was watching his pattern work and his landings
and needless to say, they were not spectacular at all. I watch about
4-5 of his landings and they were always to fast which caused him to
touch down almost midfield every time, and he would bounce it several
times after that. The guy I was with, made the comment to the fact of
"what is wrong with that guy". So you were not the only one to see
this type of flying from him.


Scott D.

[[email protected]]

I've been thinking about the Cirrus accident rate lately, and I think
that there are several factors that haven't really been discussed. I've
noticed that on Flightaware, there are usually about twice as many
Cirruses (Cirrusi?) flying IFR at any given moment than V-tail
Bonanzas. I don't know the total number of registered Bonanzas vs. the
total number of registered Cirrus, but I'm sure there are more
Bonanzas. (This observation doesn't apply right now as there is only
one Cirrus listed at the moment.) Also newer airplanes with a
perception of much greater safety (parachute?) could be flown in
conditions that an aircraft with a lesser perception of safety would be
left in the hangar. Think of the way that the Titanic was operated
because it was considered unsinkable, it was safer than other ships,
until it was operated differently because of the perception that it was
unsinkable. Perhaps there are also more Cirrus pilots with a
combination of more money and less aviation experience than other
aircraft. (doctors and lawyers etc.) I've heard from CFI's that the
worst kind of person to teach how to fly is a self made man, as they
tend to worship their creator too much. I've flown about 35 different
models of aircraft and each one had different flying characteristics,
some of which weren't exactly ideal. That doesn't mean that any
particular model was "unsafe", since I was taught that the definition
of safety is, "the acceptable level of risk".

[Happy Dog]

"Ron Lee" >

> Thus my assessment is that Cirrus pilots have too much money and
> inadequate pilot skills/common sense. Other fatal crashes just add to
> this perception.

There are idiots everywhere flying all kinds of planes. Nothing special
about Cirruses except they stand out and draw jealous ire from people who
can't afford them.

moo

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 05:30:25 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote:

>I have had concerns about Cirrus pilots after reading of some
>of the parachute deployments.

I skim the Aero-News Propwash newsletter each morning. It often seems
that there's a Cirrus deployment de jour. Aero-News thinks it's a
great thing that the parachute saves so many air crew. I think it's a
shame that the parachute trashes so many airframes.

It's a wonder Cirrus pilots can get insurance. Are we paying for them?



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On 14 Jan 2006 23:59:35 -0800, wrote:

>Cirruses (Cirrusi?)

Cirri :)


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On 14 Jan 2006 23:59:35 -0800, wrote:

>Think of the way that the Titanic was operated
>because it was considered unsinkable, it was safer than other ships,

Yes, we "consume" a considerable part of each safety development
(think ski helmets) by more aggressive behavior.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Tony]

You don't have to make excuses when you use superior judgement to avoid
circumstances where you might have had to use superior skills!

Thanks for explaining.

[John Doe]

Before you rip on too many Cirrus owners, did he have to go around for poor
airspeed control?


"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Coming back from KCOS to 00V today several aircraft were in the
> pattern for runway 33 and some people wanted runway 15 since the winds
> were at the changeover point. With one or two at the runup area for
> runway 15 I just went east until the fiasco was sorted out (I made
> several position reports since people were all over).
>
> Once that happened I announced my intentions (enter left downwind for
> 15) about 7-8 miles out and not long after that a Cirrus announced he
> was 10 miles out. When I was on left downwind the Cirrus pilot
> broadcast that he was on about 4 mile base for 15. I "assumed" he
> meant downwind. Then when I was about to turn base he called out four
> mile FINAL for 15. I saw a plane in that area and turned base
> (calling it out by radio of course)
>
> He asked if I was cutting in front of him and I stated "Looks like
> it."
>
> Soon thereafter I decided that I was too fast so went around then when
> on downwind again stated that his (Cirrus "pilot") pattern entry was
> bad. His response was "I called it out." I told him that it was not
> good when other planes are using a standard pattern. Had he been the
> only one around I would not have cared.
>
> Thus my assessment is that Cirrus pilots have too much money and
> inadequate pilot skills/common sense. Other fatal crashes just add to
> this perception.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[John Doe]

"Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 05:30:25 GMT, (Ron Lee)
> wrote:
>
>>I have had concerns about Cirrus pilots after reading of some
>>of the parachute deployments.
>
> I skim the Aero-News Propwash newsletter each morning. It often seems
> that there's a Cirrus deployment de jour. Aero-News thinks it's a
> great thing that the parachute saves so many air crew. I think it's a
> shame that the parachute trashes so many airframes.
>
> It's a wonder Cirrus pilots can get insurance. Are we paying for them?

Yes. It's a great country we live in eh? I also get to pay for all the
motor vehicle idiots, as well as all the medical idiots as well as all the
unemployed, lawsuits, prisions, etc, etc, etc. Gotta love a system of taxes
and insurance...

[John Doe]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Tony" > wrote:
>
>>Ron, a serious question here. I appreciate good judgement when you
>>chose to go around being too fast somewhere on final, but would you say
>>a few words as to what might have set up that circumstance?
>>
>>Was it a short runway, or was someone slow getting off the active, or
>>did you just come in too hot to put enough spacing between you and the
>>Cirrus?
>
> I was distracted by the traffic issues and "see and avoid a collision"
> took precedence over optimal airspeed management. This was
> particularly relevant when I turned base and was looking for someone
> on final who should not have been there; assessing the distance of
> that aircraft and speed for relevance to my normal approach. No
> excuse but it was a factor and my best judgement was to go-around
> rather than attempt to salvage a poor approach.
>
> Ron Lee
>

The interesting thing about this thread is that it is not so much
highlighting the case of unsafe Cirrus drivers as it is showing us how
someone can be distracted enough to get themself into a bad situation.

You do realize that you are actually the aircraft in the highest risk of
crashing in this situation, not the Cirrus driver you ripped on. Had
someone else with less experience or judgement attempted to land out of this
situation, it could have easily turned into an accident, long landing, can't
stop, runway departure, etc.

Atleast you made the right call to go around, I know many others that
wouldn't have.

[John Doe]

<Scott D> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:16:05 GMT, (Ron Lee)
> wrote:
>
>>Coming back from KCOS to 00V today several aircraft were in the
>>pattern for runway 33 and some people wanted runway 15 since the winds
>>were at the changeover point. With one or two at the runup area for
>>runway 15 I just went east until the fiasco was sorted out (I made
>>several position reports since people were all over).
>
> Hey Ron, I flew out of 00V today as well. We took off around 1030ish
> and came back around 1230ish. There was a SR-22 in the pattern from
> the time we were preflighting till we took off. If it was the same
> one, and I am assuming it was, it appeared to me that he was a fairly
> new pilot as well. I was watching his pattern work and his landings
> and needless to say, they were not spectacular at all. I watch about
> 4-5 of his landings and they were always to fast which caused him to
> touch down almost midfield every time, and he would bounce it several
> times after that. The guy I was with, made the comment to the fact of
> "what is wrong with that guy". So you were not the only one to see
> this type of flying from him.
>

I've seen "new pilots" in many different planes over the past 20 years,
Cirrus is just the latest crazy for those with money.

ya still gotta be careful out there.

[darthpup]

Well streamlined small aircraft can be a trick to land. The Cessna
177B is one example and the Cirrus is another. Bring them down to
within two feet of the runway surface, hold it level and apply brakes
when it hits the surface. How hard can it be?

[Tony]

It was a long time ago when I went from high wing airplanes with flaps
that would make it possible to flare on the numbers from way-too-high
on final to a Mooney 201. It took some time before I was comfortable
flying it at a suitable airspeed on short final, but that lesson was
well learned. It's nice to think about where I want to turn off the
runway and plan my touchdown a thousand feet or so before that point
without worrying about technique or the like. Nothing like hundreds and
hundreds of hours in the same airplane to be able to fly it well.

It turns out Mooneys slip really well, too: a pilot can burn a lot of
altitude without gaining airspeed that way. Mooney flaps do a good job
of reducing stall speed, but they surely are not the barn door air
brakes Cessna puts on 182s.

The 'game' my partner and I play when we fly together is, the PIC has
to buy the check pilot a drink if he has to advance the throttle
anywhere from the OM to flare (if under the hood) or from passing the
numbers downwind if in the pattern. We have other 'games' too, but that
one is relevent to this thread.

FWIW, I admire a pilot who has the intellegence to say there's
something wrong with an approach and chooses to abort a landing. Too
many others try to force things and that sometimes leads to bent
airplanes and broken people.

The thread has deviated from its initial topic into other interesting
areas without involving politics yet. How long can that last?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Michael Ware" > said:
>I got landing clearance once, 'Cessna 1234Z clear to land, short approach,
>Hawker traffic five mile final'.
>'Unable, continuing downwind'

I got something like that on my first solo - the tower said "make a short
approach, or continue downwind". I chose the downwind.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
My brother went to Florida, and all he bought me was this stupid election.
- George W. Bush

[Andrew Gideon]

Ron Lee wrote:

> Andrew, I have had concerns about Cirrus pilots after reading of some
> of the parachute deployments. This just adds fuel even if not
> statistically significant.

The only deployment about which I've read any real details was the one near
Westchester (which makes it relatively local to me). From what I
understood and recall, he responded largely to a brief blackout he
experienced (from a previously undiagnosed nerve or brain condition, I
believe).

I read and heard a lot of criticism of his choice to deploy. I'm not sure
why. First of all, why are we so quick to criticize the choices of other
pilots? They are, after all, PIC just as we are.

Sure, there are questionable pilots out there. The pattern-hogging 182
driver to whom I referred earlier is definitely one; I've several examples
in his case and have tried to talk to him about it.

The Cirrus driver that barged into your pattern might have been one too.

Still, I like to think that these are the exception rather than the rule.

Back to the deployment in Westchester: in that specific case, was he wrong?
Sure, he very likely could have continued the flight to a successful
conclusion. But there was a chance of a repeated blackout, and the pilot
had no data from which to extrapolate the likelyhood of this.

If that did occur, it could easily put not just the pilot and aircraft at
risk, but also those under his flight path. Weschester is pretty crowded.
And wouldn't *that* just do wonders for GA?

So the pilot made a very conservative choice. He paid his aircraft, and
risked his own life, to do so. I might have made a different choice, but I
don't feel it appropriate to criticize the pilot's.

Admittedly, I've a bias. I lust after Cirruses a bit. For a while, I
thought one might be in my future (though now I lean more towards another
pair of seats).

- Andrew

[BDS]

"Ron Lee" > wrote

> This was
> particularly relevant when I turned base and was looking for someone
> on final who should not have been there

Everyone knows this already but here is a reminder anyway - always keep in
mind that there is no requirement to have a radio to operate into and out of
non-towered airports. This guy told you where he was and it was still hard
to find him - what about the guy who has no radio or is on the wrong freq?

The fact is that traffic can come from anywhere at any time.

BDS

[Ron Lee]

"John Doe" > wrote:

>> Ron Lee
>>
>
>The interesting thing about this thread is that it is not so much
>highlighting the case of unsafe Cirrus drivers as it is showing us how
>someone can be distracted enough to get themself into a bad situation.
>
>You do realize that you are actually the aircraft in the highest risk of
>crashing in this situation, not the Cirrus driver you ripped on.

Actually I was safe other than the concern about an aircraft entering
the pattern "unsafely." I could have landed albeit long but under
the circumstances a go around made more sense.

I might make one go around a year due to a poor approach and my ego is
not such that I will attempt to salvage every approach regardless of
the conditions.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"Tony" > wrote:

>You don't have to make excuses when you use superior judgement to avoid
>circumstances where you might have had to use superior skills!
>
>Thanks for explaining.

I am not sure what that means but I have never claimed to be the best
pilot around. I make up for lesser skills than others with superior
judgement!

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

Scott D <> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:16:05 GMT, (Ron Lee)
>wrote:
>
>>Coming back from KCOS to 00V today several aircraft were in the
>>pattern for runway 33 and some people wanted runway 15 since the winds
>>were at the changeover point. With one or two at the runup area for
>>runway 15 I just went east until the fiasco was sorted out (I made
>>several position reports since people were all over).
>
>Hey Ron, I flew out of 00V today as well. We took off around 1030ish
>and came back around 1230ish. There was a SR-22 in the pattern from
>the time we were preflighting till we took off. If it was the same
>one, and I am assuming it was, it appeared to me that he was a fairly
>new pilot as well. I was watching his pattern work and his landings
>and needless to say, they were not spectacular at all. I watch about
>4-5 of his landings and they were always to fast which caused him to
>touch down almost midfield every time, and he would bounce it several
>times after that. The guy I was with, made the comment to the fact of
>"what is wrong with that guy". So you were not the only one to see
>this type of flying from him.
>
>
>Scott D.
>
That may have been him Scott. I landed about 1010 AM and the fact
that he could do normal patterns rules out needing to make the first
one by entering base with another aircraft (me) on downwind.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"John Doe" > wrote:

>Before you rip on too many Cirrus owners, did he have to go around for poor
>airspeed control?

Maybe not, but his poor/unsafe pattern entry did distract me from
proper airspeed management. Thus he was the one creating unsafe
conditions. Although I could have landed long, I decided it made
more sense to go around. No shame in that. Especially with an poor
pilot in a Cirrus behind me.

Is John Doe your name or are you afraid to use your real name like I
do?

Ron Lee

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:53:07 GMT, "BDS" >
wrote in >::

>The fact is that traffic can come from anywhere at any time.

That fact seems to have been lost on the majority of participants in
this message thread.

[Ron Lee]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:53:07 GMT, "BDS" >
>wrote in >::
>
>>The fact is that traffic can come from anywhere at any time.
>
>That fact seems to have been lost on the majority of participants in
>this message thread.

And in my world if the pattern is one thing and any pilot chooses to
do whatever they wish then people can die. Had no one been in the
pattern I could not have cared less how the Cirrus driver entered any
part of the pattern.

Ron Lee

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:06:31 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote in >::

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:53:07 GMT, "BDS" >
>>wrote in >::
>>
>>>The fact is that traffic can come from anywhere at any time.
>>
>>That fact seems to have been lost on the majority of participants in
>>this message thread.
>
>And in my world if the pattern is one thing a ...


Here's what the FAA has to say:

http://www.avweb.com/news/features/184492-1.html
Advisory Circular AC 90-66A
Recommended Standard Traffic Patterns and Practices for Aeronautical
Operations at Airports Without Operating Control Towers

7. GENERAL OPERATING PRACTICES.

a. Use of standard traffic patterns for all aircraft and CTAF
procedures by radio equipped aircraft are recommended at all airports
without operating control towers. However, it is recognized that other
traffic patterns may already be in common use at some airports or that
special circumstances or conditions exist that may prevent use of the
standard traffic pattern.

b. The use of any traffic pattern procedure does not alter the
responsibility of each pilot to see and avoid other aircraft. Pilots
are encouraged to participate in "Operation Lights On," which is a
voluntary pilot safety program described in the AIM designed to
enhance the "see and avoid" requirement.

c. As part of the preflight familiarization with all available
information concerning a flight, each pilot should review all
appropriate publications (AFD, AIM, Notices to Airmen (NOTAM), etc.),
for pertinent information on current traffic patterns at the departure
and arrival airports.


http://www.avweb.com/other/ac90-42f.html
Advisory Circular AC 90-42F
Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating Control
Towers


http://www.avweb.com/other/ac90-48c.html
Advisory Circular AC 90-48C
Pilots' Role in Collision Avoidance

[Dan Foster]

In article >, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> Here's what the FAA has to say:
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/features/184492-1.html

Being permanently NORDO, I much appreciate the timely reminder.

When flying, I am far more concerned about others not thinking to look
for me in the first place, than I am of not seeing others.

-Dan

[Tony]

There are a few things that are dumber than flying a non standard
pattern at an uncontrolled airport. We have problems enough seeing
airplanes flying correct patterns ("What traffic on short final?") let
alone a guy sneaking onto final low from the wrong side.

I wonder how many I haven't seen. I've surely seen enough. Years ago I
remember seeing a yellow Cub flying cutting onto final from a treetop
pattern in front of me. It's an eye opener!

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Andrew Gideon > said:
>Admittedly, I've a bias. I lust after Cirruses a bit. For a while, I
>thought one might be in my future (though now I lean more towards another
>pair of seats).

For the same price as a new SR-22, you can get a 15 year old Malibu. The
Malibu looks like a much more capable plane. So where are people so
gaa-gaa about the SR-22?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Dad, I left my heart up there."
-- Francis Gary Powers after his first flight (age 14)

[Darkwing]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Tony" > wrote:
>
>>You don't have to make excuses when you use superior judgement to avoid
>>circumstances where you might have had to use superior skills!
>>
>>Thanks for explaining.
>
> I am not sure what that means but I have never claimed to be the best
> pilot around. I make up for lesser skills than others with superior
> judgement!
>
> Ron Lee

He said you made the right choice instead of trying to salvage the landing.

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

[Happy Dog]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in
> "John Doe" > wrote:
>
>>Before you rip on too many Cirrus owners, did he have to go around for
>>poor
>>airspeed control?
>
> Maybe not, but his poor/unsafe pattern entry did distract me from
> proper airspeed management.

If that's all it takes, maybe you are more of a danger to yourself and
others than you think.

> Thus he was the one creating unsafe
> conditions.

There are myriad regular distractions at least this distracting that happen
regularly. You said that your stellar judgement keeps you out of situations
where superior skill is necessary. Perhaps you should avoid flying anywhere
but near remote deserted airports.

> Although I could have landed long, I decided it made
> more sense to go around. No shame in that. Especially with an poor
> pilot in a Cirrus behind me.

Pot, kettle, etc.
>
> Is John Doe your name or are you afraid to use your real name like I
> do?

Godlike. Your courage is an example to us all.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> In a previous article, Andrew Gideon > said:
>>Admittedly, I've a bias. I lust after Cirruses a bit. For a while, I
>>thought one might be in my future (though now I lean more towards another
>>pair of seats).
>
> For the same price as a new SR-22, you can get a 15 year old Malibu. The
> Malibu looks like a much more capable plane. So where are people so
> gaa-gaa about the SR-22?

Warranty. Especially for people who are sharing a plane. Good sales team
as well. Spend an hour or two in one and they become difficult not to like.
Have you flown one?

moo

[Andrew Gideon]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> or the same price as a new SR-22, you can get a 15 year old Malibu. The
> Malibu looks like a much more capable plane. So where are people so
> gaa-gaa about the SR-22?

It's lust. Who can explain lust?

- Andrew

[Larry Dighera]

On 15 Jan 2006 11:47:46 -0800, "Tony" > wrote in
om>::

>There are a few things that are dumber than flying a non standard
>pattern at an uncontrolled airport.

Would you characterize straight-in instrument approach in VMC as a
standard pattern?

[BDS]

"Tony" > wrote

> There are a few things that are dumber than flying a non standard
> pattern at an uncontrolled airport.

Well, hardly, but your point is well taken. My point is that it happens all
the time, so get used to it. Someone flying a non-standard pattern should
not become a semi-emergency. There are lots of ways to deal with it.

Also, having the ability to make a short approach when one is necessary is a
good tool to have in your toolbox.

BTW, I have seen just as many bone-headed moves made by pilots in light
singles as in any other aircraft.

BDS

[John Huthmaker]

Yes, I had been wondering what had happened to my post in reponse to "Bryan
Porters" first flight response. I dont know how I managed to reply under
this topic.

--
John Huthmaker
PPL-SEL P-28-161

http://www.cogentnetworking.com
"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "John Huthmaker" > wrote:
>
>>Congratulations. I have been waiting for your post since you told us last
>>week of your plans. Welcome to the wonderful world of "Real" flying;
>>something so many people think is an impossible feat.
>>
>>--
>>John Huthmaker
>
> Care to explain what you are talking about?
>
> Ron Lee

[John Doe]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "John Doe" > wrote:
>
>>Before you rip on too many Cirrus owners, did he have to go around for
>>poor
>>airspeed control?
>
> Maybe not, but his poor/unsafe pattern entry did distract me from
> proper airspeed management. Thus he was the one creating unsafe
> conditions. Although I could have landed long, I decided it made
> more sense to go around. No shame in that. Especially with an poor
> pilot in a Cirrus behind me.
>

I would love to hear what your insurance company would say about that if you
crash your plane after landing long.
I already said I think you did the right thing by going around. (no shame at
all, I think it shows great decision making)
I've read nothing yet that really convinces me that this Cirrus guy is a bad
pilot. He was flying a non-standard pattern and communicating his
intentions and location on the correct freq. He may be inconsiderate, a
jerk, etc, but in this one case, does that really make him a bad pilot? (we
don't really know if the same pilot was seen on other occasions is the game
guy)



> Is John Doe your name or are you afraid to use your real name like I
> do?
>

You're so brave, cudos to you.

[Ron Lee]

"Happy Dog" > wrote:

>"Ron Lee" > wrote in
>> "John Doe" > wrote:
>>
>>>Before you rip on too many Cirrus owners, did he have to go around for
>>>poor
>>>airspeed control?
>>
>> Maybe not, but his poor/unsafe pattern entry did distract me from
>> proper airspeed management.
>
>If that's all it takes, maybe you are more of a danger to yourself and
>others than you think.

I was just fast enough that a normal landing was not possible. That
is hardly a safety issue. I was there.


>> Thus he was the one creating unsafe
>> conditions.
>
>There are myriad regular distractions at least this distracting that happen
>regularly. You said that your stellar judgement keeps you out of situations
>where superior skill is necessary.

Never said that. Good try.

>Perhaps you should avoid flying anywhere but near remote deserted airports.

Not an option and not needed.


>> Although I could have landed long, I decided it made
>> more sense to go around. No shame in that. Especially with an poor
>> pilot in a Cirrus behind me.
>
>Pot, kettle, etc.

Your opinion. Do you fly?

>> Is John Doe your name or are you afraid to use your real name like I
>> do?
>
>Godlike. Your courage is an example to us all.
>
>moo

An anonymous poster. I am impressed.

Ron Lee

[Roger]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 05:29:09 -0500, Cub Driver <usenet AT danford DOT
net> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 05:30:25 GMT, (Ron Lee)
>wrote:
>
>>I have had concerns about Cirrus pilots after reading of some
>>of the parachute deployments.
>
>I skim the Aero-News Propwash newsletter each morning. It often seems
>that there's a Cirrus deployment de jour. Aero-News thinks it's a
>great thing that the parachute saves so many air crew. I think it's a
>shame that the parachute trashes so many airframes.
>
>It's a wonder Cirrus pilots can get insurance. Are we paying for them?

We have a husband and wife who have His and hers SR22s on the field,
the cost of insurance was more for an SR22 than for a Glasair III and
they take all the training they can get. They are good pilots,
instrument rated, commercial, and active; flying over 700 hours a year
between the two of them.

What they pay on one SR22 is about a third of what I was quoted for
the insurance on a *new* TBM 700.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>
>-- all the best, Dan Ford
>
>email: usenet AT danford DOT net
>
>Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
>Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
>In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Roger]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:06:40 -0500, "Happy Dog"
> wrote:

>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
>> In a previous article, Andrew Gideon > said:
>>>Admittedly, I've a bias. I lust after Cirruses a bit. For a while, I
>>>thought one might be in my future (though now I lean more towards another
>>>pair of seats).
>>
>> For the same price as a new SR-22, you can get a 15 year old Malibu. The
>> Malibu looks like a much more capable plane. So where are people so
>> gaa-gaa about the SR-22?
>
>Warranty. Especially for people who are sharing a plane. Good sales team
>as well. Spend an hour or two in one and they become difficult not to like.
>Have you flown one?
>

I'd take the Columbia 400 any day over the SR-22

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>moo
>

[Newps]

John Doe wrote:

>
>
> I would love to hear what your insurance company would say about that if you
> crash your plane after landing long.

They will verify your address so the check will get there. What else
could they possibly say?

[Roger]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:06:31 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:53:07 GMT, "BDS" >
>>wrote in >::
>>
>>>The fact is that traffic can come from anywhere at any time.
>>
>>That fact seems to have been lost on the majority of participants in
>>this message thread.
>
>And in my world if the pattern is one thing and any pilot chooses to

Something to remember is a pattern is *not* one thing. Assuming that
everyone uses the same altitude (which is not a safe assumption) the
size of a pattern varies greatly. Down wind my be a 1/4 mile out or
over a mile for something a bit larger, faster, and heavier. Down
wind maybe a mile, a mile and a half, or sometimes over 3 or 4 miles.
Base may be a U-turn from down wind to final close in or well over a
mile out. Maybe even over two miles out.

Now with a heavier twin, or light jet, if they did fly the pattern
they'd be so far out they might as well just come straight in, which
many do.

Here we have the standard left hand pattern, which means we have
people entering the down wind on the 45, on the 45 from a cross mid
field, and cross winds that may be over the end of the runway to 3
miles out. In addition we have three instrument approaches. The VOR
A which comes in on a heading of 137 and reaches half pattern altitude
at roughly 3 miles out. We have GPS approaches for 06 and 24 that
start about 7 miles out and are V-nav which means for VFR pilots in
the pattern they are essentially straight in. That means keeping your
head on a swivel and don't be surprised if you are on down wind for 24
when a twin shoots through 500 feet under you.

In my opinion coming straight in does show poor judgment on the Cirrus
pilot's part as he/she is flying a plane that can handle a relatively
normal pattern. OTOH you will find that their final speed is
considerably higher than that of a Cherokee or 172. It's considerably
higher than that of my Deb.

There is no standard size for a pattern, just the "all turns shall be
made to the left unless otherwise stated" and that is just a
recommendation until some one screws up.

Day before yesterday the trainers and low time pilots were using 18
while basically every one else was using 24. That makes for an
interesting pattern combination.

>do whatever they wish then people can die. Had no one been in the
>pattern I could not have cared less how the Cirrus driver entered any
>part of the pattern.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


>
>Ron Lee

[Roger]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:47:52 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On 15 Jan 2006 11:47:46 -0800, "Tony" > wrote in
om>::
>
>>There are a few things that are dumber than flying a non standard
>>pattern at an uncontrolled airport.
>
>Would you characterize straight-in instrument approach in VMC as a
>standard pattern?

How about Canadanian pilots? To them we are entering down wind on the
wrong side and I think I agree with them.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On 15 Jan 2006 11:47:46 -0800, "Tony" > wrote:

>There are a few things that are dumber than flying a non standard
>pattern at an uncontrolled airport. We have problems enough seeing
>airplanes flying correct patterns ("What traffic on short final?") let
>alone a guy sneaking onto final low from the wrong side.

Define a standard pattern.
Where do you enter down wind? Mid field, the end of the runway, two
miles out from the end of the runway? (remember the planes practicing
take offs and landings are turning down wind a mile or two out) How
far out from the runway is down wind? quarter mile, half mile, mile?
It depends on what you are flying. What about base? How far from
the end of the runway? How long is final? 1/4 mile, half mile, mile,
two miles? Again it depends on what you are flying. If not flying
the VASI I can easily match a Cherokee 180's imitation of a brick with
a very steep final. At 120 MPH and gear up I can match the flat glide
of a Cessna 172, but it's really not a good way to land.

I fly high performance, complex, retract and yes I can keep a really
tight pattern less than a quarter mile out and make base a U-turn from
down wind to the numbers with a short roll out and I do on occasion,
but I'm sure not going to do it with inexperienced passengers. In
that case I'm going to be a good half to 3/4 mile to the right with
base about a mile and a half out. Final will be a nice comfortable
(and gradual) descent) However that means I'm flying a pattern outside
that of most of the trainers. Twins fly larger patters yet. Jets
flying the pattern are usually so far out on down wind the trainers
will think they are headed for another airport, so they seldom bother.

As for cross wind, my preferred entry is *across* mid field at pattern
altitude. (This *is* the entry used in Canada and I think they got it
right) It gives you the best view. My most despised is those
entering cross wind over the numbers to about a half mile out as that
is where a lot of planes are reaching pattern altitude which makes the
entering traffic difficult to spot and the departing traffic is
difficult to spot for the entering traffic.
>
>I wonder how many I haven't seen. I've surely seen enough. Years ago I
>remember seeing a yellow Cub flying cutting onto final from a treetop
>pattern in front of me. It's an eye opener!

One of the rules is "thou shalt not take advantage of a low altitude
to enter the pattern in front of other traffic" It comes right after
that part about lower traffic in the pattern having the right-of-way.

You should have an ultra light pull in front of you when you are only
about 300 feet up on final or discover one coming head on as you are
doing an instrument approach at MDA over the runway. That is when the
flying is completely by feel as you have no time to be looking at
gauges.

The first one I missed by maybe 10 to 20 feet. The second one? The
CFII in the right seat has never told me and that was over 10 years
ago. He just says, "You don't want to know" so I'm guessing it was
not more than a foot or two.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Ken Reed]

> I skim the Aero-News Propwash newsletter each morning. It often seems
> that there's a Cirrus deployment de jour. Aero-News thinks it's a
> great thing that the parachute saves so many air crew. I think it's a
> shame that the parachute trashes so many airframes.


1) There have been six 'chute deployments in six years.

2) Four of the six are flying again (the fifth deployment just occurred
this weekend).
---
Ken Reed

[Roger]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:20:20 -0500, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>> Coming back from KCOS to 00V today several aircraft were in the
>> pattern for runway 33 and some people wanted runway 15 since the winds
>> were at the changeover point. With one or two at the runup area for
>> runway 15 I just went east until the fiasco was sorted out (I made
>> several position reports since people were all over).
>>
>> Once that happened I announced my intentions (enter left downwind for
>> 15) about 7-8 miles out and not long after that a Cirrus announced he
>> was 10 miles out. When I was on left downwind the Cirrus pilot
>> broadcast that he was on about 4 mile base for 15. I "assumed" he
>> meant downwind. Then when I was about to turn base he called out four
>> mile FINAL for 15. I saw a plane in that area and turned base
>> (calling it out by radio of course)
>>
>> He asked if I was cutting in front of him and I stated "Looks like
>> it."

You are lower, in the pattern and turning final following procedure.

However if you were in the proper place at the proper time you should
have been at the proper speed.

Be prepared and be flexible. ATC has a way of asking pilots to "keep
the speed up as long as praticable".


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On 15 Jan 2006 06:16:22 -0800, "darthpup" >
wrote:

>Well streamlined small aircraft can be a trick to land. The Cessna
>177B is one example and the Cirrus is another. Bring them down to

The 177 is streamlines?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>within two feet of the runway surface, hold it level and apply brakes
>when it hits the surface. How hard can it be?

[Jay Honeck]

>>There are a few things that are dumber than flying a non standard
>>pattern at an uncontrolled airport.
>
> Would you characterize straight-in instrument approach in VMC as a
> standard pattern?

This kind of nonsense isn't restricted to uncontrolled airspace. Here's an
example of typical pattern confusion at a Class D tower-"controlled"
airport.

We're departing on Rwy 14 today at Janesville, WI (KJVL). The tower
controller instructs us to make a right-hand departure onto our on-course
heading of 240.

Meanwhile, he's working a guy on an ILS approach to Rwy 04. The controller
warns this guy of our departure (we're coming right at him, apparently) --
and then tells us his position by reference to an intersection that is
apparently the outer marker for the ILS approach.

This intersection name, of course, means *nothing* to us, as VFR pilots, but
I simply responded in the affirmative and continued to climb as rapidly as
possible away from where I guessed this guy was.

I *should* have called the nitwit controller on the carpet, and asked for a
REAL position report, but the pattern was empty (aside from this guy and
me), and I figured I should be able to see the guy. (And, of course, being
non-radar Class D, the poor "controller" probably had no idea where the guy
was, either.)

This kind of stupidity happens every day at Class D, non-radar fields, and
it's downright scary. I'll take an uncontrolled field over this kind of
airspace any day of the week.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

>>>
>>>He asked if I was cutting in front of him and I stated "Looks like
>>>it."
>
>
> You are lower, in the pattern and turning final following procedure.

He wasn't cutting in front of him. That implies cutting him off.
Simply announcing you are on x mile final doesn't shut down final and
make everybody follow you.

[John Clonts]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message ...
> Coming back from KCOS to 00V today several aircraft were in the
> pattern for runway 33 and some people wanted runway 15 since the winds
> were at the changeover point. With one or two at the runup area for
> runway 15 I just went east until the fiasco was sorted out (I made
> several position reports since people were all over).
>
> Once that happened I announced my intentions (enter left downwind for
> 15) about 7-8 miles out and not long after that a Cirrus announced he
> was 10 miles out. When I was on left downwind the Cirrus pilot
> broadcast that he was on about 4 mile base for 15. I "assumed" he
> meant downwind. Then when I was about to turn base he called out four
> mile FINAL for 15. I saw a plane in that area and turned base
> (calling it out by radio of course)
>
> He asked if I was cutting in front of him and I stated "Looks like
> it."
>
> Soon thereafter I decided that I was too fast so went around then when
> on downwind again stated that his (Cirrus "pilot") pattern entry was
> bad. His response was "I called it out." I told him that it was not
> good when other planes are using a standard pattern. Had he been the
> only one around I would not have cared.
>
> Thus my assessment is that Cirrus pilots have too much money and
> inadequate pilot skills/common sense. Other fatal crashes just add to
> this perception.

It's common to see a variety of ways to approach and land on a runway-- ways that I wouldn't have chosen,
and/or ways that you wouldn't have chosen.

It's also common for less experienced pilots (e.g. those who can't salvage a "too-fast" landing on a 6000 foot
runway) to condemn things that they don't approve of, even though they are not illegal, unsafe, nor uncommon.

IMHO

--
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Dave Stadt]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "John Doe" > wrote:
>>
>>>Before you rip on too many Cirrus owners, did he have to go around for
>>>poor
>>>airspeed control?
>>
>> Maybe not, but his poor/unsafe pattern entry did distract me from
>> proper airspeed management. Thus he was the one creating unsafe
>> conditions. Although I could have landed long, I decided it made
>> more sense to go around. No shame in that. Especially with an poor
>> pilot in a Cirrus behind me.
>>
>
> I would love to hear what your insurance company would say about that if
> you crash your plane after landing long.

They would say here is a check to get the aircraft fixed. Why would thay
say anything else?

[Dave Stadt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:caEyf.708514$_o.92357@attbi_s71...
>>>There are a few things that are dumber than flying a non standard
>>>pattern at an uncontrolled airport.
>>
>> Would you characterize straight-in instrument approach in VMC as a
>> standard pattern?
>
> This kind of nonsense isn't restricted to uncontrolled airspace. Here's an
> example of typical pattern confusion at a Class D tower-"controlled"
> airport.
>
> We're departing on Rwy 14 today at Janesville, WI (KJVL). The tower
> controller instructs us to make a right-hand departure onto our on-course
> heading of 240.
>
> Meanwhile, he's working a guy on an ILS approach to Rwy 04. The
> controller warns this guy of our departure (we're coming right at him,
> apparently) -- and then tells us his position by reference to an
> intersection that is apparently the outer marker for the ILS approach.
>
> This intersection name, of course, means *nothing* to us, as VFR pilots,
> but I simply responded in the affirmative and continued to climb as
> rapidly as possible away from where I guessed this guy was.
>
> I *should* have called the nitwit controller on the carpet, and asked for
> a REAL position report, but the pattern was empty (aside from this guy and
> me), and I figured I should be able to see the guy. (And, of course,
> being non-radar Class D, the poor "controller" probably had no idea where
> the guy was, either.)
>
> This kind of stupidity happens every day at Class D, non-radar fields, and
> it's downright scary. I'll take an uncontrolled field over this kind of
> airspace any day of the week.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Janesville is an exception, a bad one. Many of us in the local area will no
longer land there.

[Jay Honeck]

> Janesville is an exception, a bad one. Many of us in the local area will
> no longer land there.

Sadly, I must disagree. I've run into this kind of stuff at many Class D,
non-radar-controlled airports, all across the U.S. It's just the nature of
the beast.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[cjcampbell]

Ron Lee wrote:
>
> He asked if I was cutting in front of him and I stated "Looks like
> it."
>

Bad move. You just broke the right of way rules. It does not matter
whether you think his long final was reasonable. You cut in front of a
landing aircraft. If there had been an accident, chances are good that
you are the one who would have been found at fault.

> Soon thereafter I decided that I was too fast so went around then when
> on downwind again stated that his (Cirrus "pilot") pattern entry was
> bad.

Wrong again. There is nothing prohibiting straight-in landings. Many
instrument approaches require them, and one of the pilots may be
wearing a hood. He may also have specific missed approach instructions
from ATC which might even be different from anything published; ATC
seems to like to tell aircraft to turn 90 degrees right or left
directly over the runway and cut straight across what you seem to think
is the 'normal' pattern. You are wrong to assume that all aircraft fly
by the same rules you do. They do not. Different aircraft fly different
patterns. They enter the pattern depending on the flight rules they are
operating under. Towers may ask aircraft to fly patterns on both sides
of the runway. Transiting aircraft may be constrained by ATC to flying
just above the pattern. High performance aicraft may fly a higher and
wider pattern than others. Helicopters may fly an opposite pattern or
even no pattern at all. Ultralights may fly inside and lower than other
aircraft. You might think that lighter than air aircraft would be easy
to see, but they are not always coming from a direction that you would
expect. Whenever you are in the vicinity of an airport, you should
assume that aircraft can come from any direction at any time.

His response was "I called it out." I told him that it was not
> good when other planes are using a standard pattern. Had he been the
> only one around I would not have cared.
>

And wrong yet again. The radios are not to be used for arguments. By
your own admission there were other aircraft in the pattern. You tied
up the radios in order to argue with another pilot, endangering both
yourself and others. Even if you had been right, which you were not,
the place to settle it is on the ground.

> Thus my assessment is that Cirrus pilots have too much money and
> inadequate pilot skills/common sense. Other fatal crashes just add to
> this perception.
>

Guess what my perception is of you? If you had been my student, you
would have been chewed up one side and clawed down the other -- but my
students know better than to act like this in the first place.

I would not care for your attitude even if you had been right. A little
more humility, friendliness, and cooperation is in order. You make
mistakes, too. All pilots do.

> Ron Lee

[Roger]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:42:30 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>
>>>>
>>>>He asked if I was cutting in front of him and I stated "Looks like
>>>>it."
>>
>>
>> You are lower, in the pattern and turning final following procedure.
>
>He wasn't cutting in front of him. That implies cutting him off.
>Simply announcing you are on x mile final doesn't shut down final and
>make everybody follow you.

Which is what I was getting at<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Happy Dog]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message news:
>>> Maybe not, but his poor/unsafe pattern entry did distract me from
>>> proper airspeed management.
>>
>>If that's all it takes, maybe you are more of a danger to yourself and
>>others than you think.
>
> I was just fast enough that a normal landing was not possible. That
> is hardly a safety issue. I was there.

You were distracted by a common (ask around) occurrance. Do you call a
missed approach when your pax farts?
>
>
>>> Thus he was the one creating unsafe
>>> conditions.
>>
>>There are myriad regular distractions at least this distracting that
>>happen
>>regularly. You said that your stellar judgement keeps you out of
>>situations
>>where superior skill is necessary.
>
> Never said that. Good try.

Yes, you did:

"I make up for lesser skills than others with superior judgement!"

>
>>Perhaps you should avoid flying anywhere but near remote deserted
>>airports.
>
> Not an option and not needed.

If you can't control your airspeed in the patten when some mundane (and it
was) distraction occurs then it's likey needed. I'll gladly concede defeat
on this if any experienced pilot here thinks that you were sorely
challenged.
>
>
>>> Although I could have landed long, I decided it made
>>> more sense to go around. No shame in that. Especially with an poor
>>> pilot in a Cirrus behind me.
>>
>>Pot, kettle, etc.
>
> Your opinion. Do you fly?

Yes.
>
>>> Is John Doe your name or are you afraid to use your real name like I
>>> do?
>>
>>Godlike. Your courage is an example to us all.
>>
> An anonymous poster. I am impressed.

Hey stoopid, I'm not anonymous. I've posted from the same ISP for a decade.
That I just know that you're a pompous ass and you don't know my phone
number is of no interest to the world at large. Really want it? Google is
your friend.

moo

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Happy Dog wrote:
> You were distracted by a common (ask around) occurrance. Do you call a
> missed approach when your pax farts?


Depends.... I have one friend for whom we would notify civil defense and ask for
the equipment (fire trucks, ambulances, etc....).




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Gary Drescher]

"Michael Ware" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I got landing clearance once, 'Cessna 1234Z clear to land, short approach,
> Hawker traffic five mile final'.
> 'Unable, continuing downwind'
>
> sure, could have cut the throttle, dropped the flaps and swooped in real
> tight, but it really isn't worth the minute or two saved to get bunched
> up.
> Just relax and watch the jet traffic go by.

That's certainly a reasonable choice. But I prefer to regard the tower's
short-approach instruction (usually prefaced with "if able") to be good a
opportunity for spontaneous engine-failure practice, so I like to comply.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Ron Lee wrote:
>>
>> He asked if I was cutting in front of him and I stated "Looks like
>> it."
>
> Bad move. You just broke the right of way rules. It does not matter
> whether you think his long final was reasonable. You cut in front of a
> landing aircraft.

According to 91.113b, you can cut ahead of an aircraft that has right of way
provided that you can remain "well clear". So it's not a violation of the
rules if you cut in front of a landing aircraft that's on a long enough
final.

--Gary

[John Doe]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> John Doe wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I would love to hear what your insurance company would say about that if
>> you crash your plane after landing long.
>
> They will verify your address so the check will get there. What else
> could they possibly say?

You missed my point. It sounded like the OP was trying to put blame for his
inability to control airspeed and land on the fault of the Cirrus pilot
behind him. So if an accident had occurerd, fault would not lie with the
PIC but the Cirrus pilot. Had all that occurred, I would love to hear what
the lawyers would say about that.....that's all, nothing more than
interesting speculation.

[Newps]

cjcampbell wrote:

> Ron Lee wrote:
>
>>He asked if I was cutting in front of him and I stated "Looks like
>>it."
>>
>
>
> Bad move. You just broke the right of way rules. It does not matter
> whether you think his long final was reasonable. You cut in front of a
> landing aircraft.


Baloney. Announcing you are on a 4 mile final doesn't mean eveybody now
has to follow you.



If there had been an accident, chances are good that
> you are the one who would have been found at fault.

Well then he wasn't on a 4 mile final and see and avoid didn't work either.

[Newps]

cjcampbell wrote:

There is nothing prohibiting straight-in landings.

Correct.



Many
> instrument approaches require them, and one of the pilots may be
> wearing a hood.


Irrelavant.





He may also have specific missed approach instructions
> from ATC which might even be different from anything published;

Irrelavant.



ATC
> seems to like to tell aircraft to turn 90 degrees right or left
> directly over the runway and cut straight across what you seem to think
> is the 'normal' pattern.

Irrelavant. This is an uncontrolled field and the pilot has to take
care of that situation before worrying about missed approach instructions.

Towers may ask aircraft to fly patterns on both sides
> of the runway. Transiting aircraft may be constrained by ATC to flying
> just above the pattern.

That's great but we're talking about an uncontrolled field.

[Newps]

John Doe wrote:


>
> You missed my point. It sounded like the OP was trying to put blame for his
> inability to control airspeed and land on the fault of the Cirrus pilot
> behind him. So if an accident had occurerd, fault would not lie with the
> PIC but the Cirrus pilot. Had all that occurred, I would love to hear what
> the lawyers would say about that.....that's all, nothing more than
> interesting speculation.

OK, I though you meant that if the two crashed in to each other, thereby
proving that he cut him off. Losing control of ones airspeed because
someone on the frequency starts talking is one of the dumbest things I
have heard.

[Jose]

> I'll take an uncontrolled field over this kind of
> airspace any day of the week.

How would it have been different had the field been uncontrolled? You
would not have been given an instruction to turn, and you would not get
the position report. Remember that you, as PIC, are responsible for the
safety of the flight. If you believe the turn to be unsafe, you decline it.

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

[Ron Lee]

"John Clonts" > wrote:

>It's also common for less experienced pilots (e.g. those who can't salvage a "too-fast" landing on a 6000 foot
>runway) to condemn things that they don't approve of, even though they are not illegal, unsafe, nor uncommon.
>

>John Clonts
>Temple, Texas
>N7NZ

John, the problem was the Cirrus pilot and I had a problem with his
pattern before I determined that my approach was not optimal. And I
could have "salvaged" it but why take unnecessary risks?

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"John Doe" > wrote:
>
>You missed my point. It sounded like the OP was trying to put blame for his
>inability to control airspeed and land on the fault of the Cirrus pilot
>behind him. So if an accident had occurerd, fault would not lie with the
>PIC but the Cirrus pilot. Had all that occurred, I would love to hear what
>the lawyers would say about that.....that's all, nothing more than
>interesting speculation.

I was not putting blame on the Cirrus pilot for me being fast. I was
blaming him for making a non-standard pattern entry when other
aircraft were using the standard.

Ron Lee
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Ken Reed wrote:

> 2) Four of the six are flying again (the fifth deployment just occurred
> this weekend).

You mean four of the aircraft? That's rather impressive considering that a
deployment is supposed to total the aircraft.

Or do you mean four of the pilots?

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Ron Lee wrote:

> And I
> could have "salvaged" it but why take unnecessary risks?

I'm of mixed mind.

On one hand, it's fairly common at some airports around here (KTEB being the
extreme in my experience, but it's not alone) to be told to keep the speed
up on final. Given the long runways involved, I've never had a problem
with that. In fact, the long slow flare is both fun and good practice.

If you cannot handle a landing that's a little hot, there are airports where
you'll not be welcome.

On the other hand, assuming VMC and either no passenger or a willing one
(and a few other conditions), I'll go around if a leaf blows across the
runway. Landing is the beginning of the end of the flight, and who wants
that?

Of course, I justify the cost of the extra flight time by having avoided all
that foreign object damage <laugh>.

- Andrew

[George Patterson]

Ken Reed wrote:

> 2) Four of the six are flying again (the fifth deployment just occurred
> this weekend).

Do you have more details on the restoration process? Earlier reports indicated
that using the chute would total the aircraft.

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

[Ken Reed]

>>Four of the six are flying again (the fifth deployment just occurred
>>this weekend).
>
>
> You mean four of the aircraft? That's rather impressive considering that a
> deployment is supposed to total the aircraft.
>
> Or do you mean four of the pilots?


Aircraft.
---
Ken Reed

[Ken Reed]

>> Four of the six are flying again (the fifth deployment just
>> occurred this weekend).

> Do you have more details on the restoration process? Earlier reports
> indicated that using the chute would total the aircraft.

True. It turns out that most can be made airworthy again without
tremendous expense.
---
Ken Reed

[cjcampbell]

Newps wrote:
>
> That's great but we're talking about an uncontrolled field.

Fine, then. I guess you don't have to see and avoid at an uncontrolled
field, is that what you and Gary are saying?

I am saying that the OP has no particular reason to suppose that
everyone has to fly by whatever rules he personally thinks are best.
Although the Cirrus was on a 4 mile final, the pilot apparently thought
that the OP had cut in front of him. The Cirrus was probably somewhat
closer than a 4 mile final when the OP turned base to final. Whether
the OP managed to remain "well clear" is subjective; the Cirrus pilot
does not appear to have thought so.

Now, when someone says that they are on a 4 mile final, how often have
you seen where they were actually 4 miles out? In my experience it can
mean they are anywhere from right over the threshold to 15 miles out.
Pilots are notoriously bad judges of distance, especially at
uncontrolled fields.

The OP seems to think that everything at an uncontrolled field should
be nice and orderly, with no surprises. Personally, I would be
surprised to find an uncontrolled field that operates that way. At
least the Cirrus pilot was using his radios and had them tuned to the
right frequency, a great blessing indeed for the OP. I wonder what the
OP would have done if the Cirrus had been NORDO, or had an emergency?

I am sorry that the OP was inconvenienced. I truly am. At least he
lived through it. But telling him that he does not have to see and
avoid at an uncontrolled field and sympathizing with him because of the
'arrogant' Cirrus pilot teaches him nothing.

[Ron Lee]

"cjcampbell" > wrote:

>
>Newps wrote:
>>
>> That's great but we're talking about an uncontrolled field.
>
>Fine, then. I guess you don't have to see and avoid at an uncontrolled
>field, is that what you and Gary are saying?
>
>I am saying that the OP has no particular reason to suppose that
>everyone has to fly by whatever rules he personally thinks are best.
>Although the Cirrus was on a 4 mile final, the pilot apparently thought
>that the OP had cut in front of him. The Cirrus was probably somewhat
>closer than a 4 mile final when the OP turned base to final. Whether
>the OP managed to remain "well clear" is subjective; the Cirrus pilot
>does not appear to have thought so.
>
>Now, when someone says that they are on a 4 mile final, how often have
>you seen where they were actually 4 miles out? In my experience it can
>mean they are anywhere from right over the threshold to 15 miles out.
>Pilots are notoriously bad judges of distance, especially at
>uncontrolled fields.
>
>The OP seems to think that everything at an uncontrolled field should
>be nice and orderly, with no surprises. Personally, I would be
>surprised to find an uncontrolled field that operates that way. At
>least the Cirrus pilot was using his radios and had them tuned to the
>right frequency, a great blessing indeed for the OP. I wonder what the
>OP would have done if the Cirrus had been NORDO, or had an emergency?
>
>I am sorry that the OP was inconvenienced. I truly am. At least he
>lived through it. But telling him that he does not have to see and
>avoid at an uncontrolled field and sympathizing with him because of the
>'arrogant' Cirrus pilot teaches him nothing.

It does teach me something. That Cirrus pilots can be idiots. See
also BRS deployments for engaging in flight that is stupid. I fly
many hours into and out of uncontrolled and controlled fields. What
the Cirrus pilot did was unacceptable and that sort of behavior may
eventually get him and others killed. I won't be one of the others
because I expect inept pilots like him to be around.

Ron Lee
>

[Matt Jensen]

Do me a favor and remind me never to speak up on this group, okay? I
can't believe the extent to which some of you people get off on bashing
each other. Flying is like a brotherhood, except that the learned older
brothers often don't grow up, move out of the house, and stop picking on
little bro. Ma keeps having kids, and 50-year-old big brother Larry
can't wait to smack them around a bit.

From what I understand, what we're talking about here is a guy who
heard on the radio that there may be conflicting traffic about to cross
his path. It caused him to spin his head around enough that he lost
track of his airspeed to one extent or another--could have been 1 knot
off, could have been 20. He never mentioned how far off the mark he
was. He made what at worst could be called a "mistake," which happens
to everyone, then he used his best judgement to get back into his zone
of comfort. And people are bent out of shape about this?

Of course, the whole reason HE brought it up was to bash ANOTHER
pilot... Sheesh.


Newps wrote:
>
> OK, I though you meant that if the two crashed in to each other, thereby
> proving that he cut him off. Losing control of ones airspeed because
> someone on the frequency starts talking is one of the dumbest things I
> have heard.

[Happy Dog]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "John Doe" > wrote:
>>
>>You missed my point. It sounded like the OP was trying to put blame for
>>his
>>inability to control airspeed and land on the fault of the Cirrus pilot
>>behind him. So if an accident had occurerd, fault would not lie with the
>>PIC but the Cirrus pilot. Had all that occurred, I would love to hear
>>what
>>the lawyers would say about that.....that's all, nothing more than
>>interesting speculation.
>
> I was not putting blame on the Cirrus pilot for me being fast. I was
> blaming him for making a non-standard pattern entry when other
> aircraft were using the standard.

"John, the problem was the Cirrus pilot"

"his poor/unsafe pattern entry did distract me from
proper airspeed management. Thus he was the one creating unsafe
conditions."

As you haven't said, how fast were you and at what point in your approach?

MOO

[Thomas Borchert]

George,

> Earlier reports indicated
> that using the chute would total the aircraft.
>

It seems to depend very much on where the airplane comes down. The
first "restorable" was the one in Texas, IIRC, which came down in dense
bushes. That seems to cushion the impact enough to not do much damage
as opposed to, say, asphalt.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> He made what at worst could be called a "mistake," which happens
> to everyone, then he used his best judgement to get back into his zone
> of comfort.
>

AND he bashed another pilot in the process for something not at all
unusual. Nothing wrong with pointing that out, IMHO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[cjcampbell]

Ron Lee wrote:
> I fly
> many hours into and out of uncontrolled and controlled fields. What
> the Cirrus pilot did was unacceptable and that sort of behavior may
> eventually get him and others killed.

It might.

> I won't be one of the others
> because I expect inept pilots like him to be around.
>

I hope not. Unlike some others around here, though, I have not
convinced myself that my god-like aviation ability has made me
immortal. There are those who do think that way, and it strikes me that
their saying Cirrus pilots are arrogant is a little bit of the pot
calling the kettle black.

[clipclip]

Thus my assessment is that Cirrus pilots have too much money and
inadequate pilot skills/common sense. Other fatal crashes just add to
this perception.

Ron Lee

i'd say pretty much the same thing but in a different way - i have seen many well-off pilots who (implicitly) think that having a glass cockpit with the latest of everything is almost equivalent to a force field that will protect them against anything - and if it doesn't, the BRS will. the toys and gadgets distract the pilot from the real task at hand - which is to fly well within the performance envelope. the fatal accident record of the cirrus seems to support that. IIRC, its fatal crash rate is higher than that of the rest of the GA fleet (someone correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure i've read this in a number of publications) . i also seem to remember that insuring a cirrus is limited to one (or very few companies) and carries a very high rate because of these incidents.

unfortunately, any aircraft, when pointed at a hard object will eventually hurt its occupants. gathering ice, exploring the unusual attitude part of the flight envelope, trying to fly VFR in solid clouds (and whatever other stupid pilot trick) will often result in premature landings and rapid decelerations. the PIC is the only individual with the burden of sometimes difficult decisions - no amount of electronics or chute can discharge him from that responsibility.

that fact seems to get forgotten when the plane is sold as a "safest" and "foolproof" plane. most if not all the plane's mag reviews seem to emphasize how failures are very unlikely or quasi-impossible. however, the single most vulnerable and least reliable aircraft system, is the chair-joystick interface and is rarely adressed. (the pilot, whose fundamental design has not changed significantly over the last 10,000 years).

some recent cirrus accidents make the point - consider the recent one where the pilot with low hours and a brand new plane took off with his family, flew into IMC and perished. consider the pilot who flew over the cascades, seems to have taken on severe icing, and tried to deploy his chute which didn't function properly. or another pilot who was seen doing slow steep turns and stalls at low altitude and finally got the plane to spin into the ground. ... and i could bore you with many more examples. unfortunately, this type of accident seems to be too frequent in this airframe.

IMO, a serious commitment to airmanship, pilotage, and remaining well away from the ragged bleeding edges of the performance envelope is the only way to significantly improve the safety of flying. the truly weak link in flying an airplane is the payload in the front left seat.

"my skills as a pilot have taken years to develop and improve very slowly with much hard work, while my ability to do stupid things has remained totally intact and has not required any training"

frank

[BDS]

"Ron Lee" > wrote

> It does teach me something. That Cirrus pilots can be idiots.

In my experience the aircraft does not make the idiot.

> ...BRS deployments for engaging in flight that is stupid.

Seems like a rush to judgement with few facts.

> What
> the Cirrus pilot did was unacceptable and that sort of behavior may
> eventually get him and others killed.

Maybe it was unacceptable, but it is also quite common especially at
airports with corporate and commercial traffic. Realizing this, and
planning and being prepared for it is what will keep you and those you share
the skies with alive.

BDS

[Gary Drescher]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> According to 91.113b, you can cut ahead of an aircraft that has right of
> way
> provided that you can remain "well clear". So it's not a violation of the
> rules if you cut in front of a landing aircraft that's on a long enough
> final.

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Fine, then. I guess you don't have to see and avoid at an uncontrolled
> field, is that what [you] are saying?

Um, no. Seeing and avoiding is (primarily) how you determine whether you can
cut in front of a landing aircraft yet remain well clear, thus complying
with the right-of-way rules.

> Now, when someone says that they are on a 4 mile final, how often have
> you seen where they were actually 4 miles out? In my experience it can
> mean they are anywhere from right over the threshold to 15 miles out.

That's one reason you have to scan visually regardless of what the radio
report says. The only time you should trust the radio report more than your
visual scan is if you *don't* see the landing aircraft nearby but it reports
that it *is* so close that you should be able to see it.

--Gary

[Newps]

cjcampbell wrote:

>
> I am saying that the OP has no particular reason to suppose that
> everyone has to fly by whatever rules he personally thinks are best.
> Although the Cirrus was on a 4 mile final, the pilot apparently thought
> that the OP had cut in front of him. The Cirrus was probably somewhat
> closer than a 4 mile final when the OP turned base to final. Whether
> the OP managed to remain "well clear" is subjective; the Cirrus pilot
> does not appear to have thought so.

Well clear means you don't have to make any adjustments for the fact
that now there is somebody in front of you. His actual mileage from the
runway was irrelavant.


>
> Now, when someone says that they are on a 4 mile final, how often have
> you seen where they were actually 4 miles out?

The actual distance doesn't matter. If I can see them and judge that I
can turn in front without causing them to alter their flightpath then I
will. If I can't see them because they're so far out on final I'm
turning base anyways.


But telling him that he does not have to see and
> avoid at an uncontrolled field

Nobody said that.

[Happy Dog]

"clipclip" .

> i'd say pretty much the same thing but in a different way - i have seen
> many well-off pilots who (implicitly) think that having a glass cockpit
> with the latest of everything is almost equivalent to a force field
> that will protect them against anything - and if it doesn't, the BRS
> will.


We keep hearing about these guys but they don't ever seem to say this
anywhere we can verify it. Can you?

> the toys and gadgets distract the pilot from the real task at
> hand - which is to fly well within the performance envelope. the fatal
> accident record of the cirrus seems to support that. IIRC, its fatal
> crash rate is higher than that of the rest of the GA fleet (someone
> correct me if i'm wrong

No. Your assertion. You back it up.

> i also seem to remember that insuring a cirrus is
> limited to one (or very few companies) and carries a very high rate
> because of these incidents.

Evidence. That's not my experience. Except in Canada. But that has
nothing to do with the accident rate.
>
> that fact seems to get forgotten when the plane is sold as a "safest"
> and "foolproof" plane.

Not my experience. And I've been through the sales pitch. Have you? How
do you know how they sell it?

> most if not all the plane's mag reviews seem to
> emphasize how failures are very unlikely or quasi-impossible.

What type of "failures"? There's rather a lot, you know.
however,

> some recent cirrus accidents make the point - consider the recent one
> where the pilot with low hours and a brand new plane took off with his
> family, flew into IMC and perished. consider the pilot who flew over
> the cascades, seems to have taken on severe icing, and tried to deploy
> his chute which didn't function properly. or another pilot who was seen
> doing slow steep turns and stalls at low altitude and finally got the
> plane to spin into the ground. ... and i could bore you with many more
> examples. unfortunately, this type of accident seems to be too frequent
> in this airframe.

Again, you got some comparitive cites?
>
> IMO, a serious commitment to airmanship, pilotage, and remaining well
> away from the ragged bleeding edges of the performance envelope is the
> only way to significantly improve the safety of flying. the truly weak
> link in flying an airplane is the payload in the front left seat.

I don't think you'll find anyone who doubts that here.

m

[Matt Jensen]

For the record, I did notice (and mention) that. :-)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
> AND he bashed another pilot in the process for something not at all
> unusual. Nothing wrong with pointing that out, IMHO.
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Clipclip,

> i have seen...


That's not how valid statistics work.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> For the record, I did notice (and mention) that. :-)
>

I know ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Marty]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
---SNIP---

> I'd take the Columbia 400 any day over the SR-22
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
>

Hi Roger,

I'd like one too.
But I'd settle for Dibs on the Deb ;-)

Marty

[Roger]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 02:05:09 GMT, Ken Reed > wrote:

>>> Four of the six are flying again (the fifth deployment just
>>> occurred this weekend).
>
>> Do you have more details on the restoration process? Earlier reports
>> indicated that using the chute would total the aircraft.
>
>True. It turns out that most can be made airworthy again without
>tremendous expense.

Expense when tied to an airplane is *relative*.

When you are purchasing 400 to 450 thousand dollar airplanes, 40 to 60
thousand to fix one after a chute deployment is not bad. Once they
are 20 plus years old that is a different kettle of fish.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>---
>Ken Reed

[Roger]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 01:08:57 -0600, "Marty" >
wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>---SNIP---
>
>> I'd take the Columbia 400 any day over the SR-22
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>
>Hi Roger,
>
>I'd like one too.
>But I'd settle for Dibs on the Deb ;-)

For a slightly exorbinate price I'll even deliver in the lower 48, but
I'll probably be flying the Deb as long as I have a license unless I
get the G-III finished before I'm too old to fly.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Marty
>

[[email protected]]

I'm not taking the time to read the many responses to your inflammatory post. I
will cut to the chase and declare that you're an idiot.. Or alternatively,
merely insanely jealous of those folks that are fortunate enough to be able to
fly Cirrus aircraft.

OK, now that I've set your underwear on fire, please explain how you can assert
that because you had a run-in with a single pilot that happened to be flying a
Cirrus, that Cirri are prone to crashing and/or generally bad behavior. Had he
been flying a 172 or a PA28 or a Katana or a Learjet or Pilatus, would you've
posted that all pilots of that type are crash-prone? I think not.

There is an interesting trend I'm seeing, that at least some pilots assume that
anyone flying a Cirrus must be rich and under-trained. Trust me, there are rich
folks flying ALL types of aircraft, and some of them are as competent as you or
me - or more - and some are less-so. It has nothing to do with the aircraft
type.

Disclaimer: I have a few SR20 hours, and I like the aircraft - in fact I think
it's one of the best things to happen to GA in many years. I like 172SPs almost
as much. I like Pilatus PC12s much more 8^) . But your post just irks the ****
out of me. It's a classic case of stereotyping due to ignorance, or envy,
or... whatever you're feeling.

Get over that incident and keep an eye out for the next idiot making a
straight-in approach, 15 miles out (perhaps for a practice instrument
approach?), for a very busy runway. He just might be flying your favorite
airplane.

Dave Blevins



On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:16:05 GMT, (Ron Lee) wrote:

>Coming back from KCOS to 00V today several aircraft were in the
>pattern for runway 33 and some people wanted runway 15 since the winds
>were at the changeover point. With one or two at the runup area for
>runway 15 I just went east until the fiasco was sorted out (I made
>several position reports since people were all over).
>
>Once that happened I announced my intentions (enter left downwind for
>15) about 7-8 miles out and not long after that a Cirrus announced he
>was 10 miles out. When I was on left downwind the Cirrus pilot
>broadcast that he was on about 4 mile base for 15. I "assumed" he
>meant downwind. Then when I was about to turn base he called out four
>mile FINAL for 15. I saw a plane in that area and turned base
>(calling it out by radio of course)
>
>He asked if I was cutting in front of him and I stated "Looks like
>it."
>
>Soon thereafter I decided that I was too fast so went around then when
>on downwind again stated that his (Cirrus "pilot") pattern entry was
>bad. His response was "I called it out." I told him that it was not
>good when other planes are using a standard pattern. Had he been the
>only one around I would not have cared.
>
>Thus my assessment is that Cirrus pilots have too much money and
>inadequate pilot skills/common sense. Other fatal crashes just add to
>this perception.
>
>Ron Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>