Cirrus crash midair

Dallas writes:

Don't know about low time... but, yeah... his fault.

Sec. 91.113 Right-of-way rules:
However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the
right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.

There is no chance the accident is not the fault of the Cirrus pilot. The
NTSB report will read: Failure to give right of way and failure to see and
avoid.

Yup. And the incredible thing is that the same thing has happened before, also
with a Cirrus pilot clipping the tow line of a tow plane. In the previous
case, the pilot pulled the parachute (I guess it didn't occur to him to fly
the plane, although I'm not sure how much damage was done), and floated safely
to earth. Obviously it was the Cirrus pilot's fault in that incident as well.

Cirrus has a poor accident record. There's nothing wrong with the aircraft,
but the company markets its aircraft very aggressively to very naïve, low-time
pilots, emphasizing characteristics other than safety (e.g. prestige, comfort)
and deliberately presenting certain things in a way that is clearly intended
to inspire a false sense of security. This means that a lot of inexperienced
and/or careless pilots buy Cirrus aircraft.

For example, if you look at their marketing, they now talk about icing
protection without mentioning the "entry into known" part, thus creating the
impression that their icing protection allows you to fly through icing
conditions with impunity, which is not at all what FIKI certification is all
about. And they talk about their parachutes as if these can solve any problem
and compensate for any lack of skill on the part of the pilot--without
mentioning that they originally used the parachutes just to get the aircraft
certified (rather than spin testing, if I recall correctly).

There are some Cirrus pilots who are now dead who regularly reassured their
entourage that flying the aircraft was safe because it had a parachute. Either
those pilots were lying, or they had been seriously misled by someone.

Cirrus is the "fork-tailed doctor killer" of our era. The old V-tailed
Bonanzas tended to attract low-time, low-competence, high-income pilots, and
Cirrus aircraft are doing the same thing. I don't know if Beechcraft ever
deliberately tried to target that market as Cirrus is doing, though.

Mx, Dallas,

How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic accident??
(low time and failure to give right of way) Ah, you both were there, right?
You may have read something I don't know about yet, but until you have
proven facts on paper there is no way you can give the Cirrus pilot the
blame / fault for this.

Loek

"Mxsmanic" schreef in bericht
...
Dallas writes:

Don't know about low time... but, yeah... his fault.

Sec. 91.113 Right-of-way rules:
However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the
right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.

There is no chance the accident is not the fault of the Cirrus pilot.
The
NTSB report will read: Failure to give right of way and failure to see
and
avoid.

Yup. And the incredible thing is that the same thing has happened before,
also
with a Cirrus pilot clipping the tow line of a tow plane. In the previous
case, the pilot pulled the parachute (I guess it didn't occur to him to
fly
the plane, although I'm not sure how much damage was done), and floated
safely
to earth. Obviously it was the Cirrus pilot's fault in that incident as
well.

Cirrus has a poor accident record. There's nothing wrong with the
aircraft,
but the company markets its aircraft very aggressively to very naïve,
low-time
pilots, emphasizing characteristics other than safety (e.g. prestige,
comfort)
and deliberately presenting certain things in a way that is clearly
intended
to inspire a false sense of security. This means that a lot of
inexperienced
and/or careless pilots buy Cirrus aircraft.

For example, if you look at their marketing, they now talk about icing
protection without mentioning the "entry into known" part, thus creating
the
impression that their icing protection allows you to fly through icing
conditions with impunity, which is not at all what FIKI certification is
all
about. And they talk about their parachutes as if these can solve any
problem
and compensate for any lack of skill on the part of the pilot--without
mentioning that they originally used the parachutes just to get the
aircraft
certified (rather than spin testing, if I recall correctly).

There are some Cirrus pilots who are now dead who regularly reassured
their
entourage that flying the aircraft was safe because it had a parachute.
Either
those pilots were lying, or they had been seriously misled by someone.

Cirrus is the "fork-tailed doctor killer" of our era. The old V-tailed
Bonanzas tended to attract low-time, low-competence, high-income pilots,
and
Cirrus aircraft are doing the same thing. I don't know if Beechcraft ever
deliberately tried to target that market as Cirrus is doing, though.

"Loek" writes:

Mx, Dallas,

How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic accident??

They were making quite reasonable conjecture. Indeed the tow plane and
glider had the legal right of way. More important as to the cause of the
accident, who was going faster? Almost certainly the Cirrus. It's like
saying the Hudson River plane was hit by birds. Not so, the plane hit
the birds.
--
No one is completely unhappy at the failure of his best friend.
Groucho Marx

Hi Bug Dout,

Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot, and is still with his
country's accident investigation board......,

I'm a little hazy re the details of that last bit, but maybe Loek will
fill us in a bit.

Regards,
John Ward

"Bug Dout" wrote in message
...
"Loek" writes:

Mx, Dallas,

How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic
accident??

They were making quite reasonable conjecture. Indeed the tow plane and
glider had the legal right of way. More important as to the cause of the
accident, who was going faster? Almost certainly the Cirrus. It's like
saying the Hudson River plane was hit by birds. Not so, the plane hit
the birds.
--
No one is completely unhappy at the failure of his best friend.
Groucho Marx

"Bug Dout" wrote in message
...
"Loek" writes:

Mx, Dallas,

How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic
accident??

They were making quite reasonable conjecture. Indeed the tow plane and
glider had the legal right of way. More important as to the cause of the
accident, who was going faster? Almost certainly the Cirrus. It's like
saying the Hudson River plane was hit by birds. Not so, the plane hit
the birds.
--
No one is completely unhappy at the failure of his best friend.
Groucho Marx


It's clear that the Cirrus pilot was at fault.

Here are the UK aviation right of way rules:

Order of precedence

Flying machines shall give way to Airships, Glider and Balloons
Airships shall give way to gliders and balloons
Gliders shall give way to balloons
Mechanically driven aircraft shall give way to aircraft which are towing
other aircraft or objects

Here are the FAA right of way rules:


91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an
aircraft on water.

(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an
operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules,
vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to
see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another
aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may
not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.

(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other
air traffic.

(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at
approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft
to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different
categories-

(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;

(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered parachute,
weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

(3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute,
weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way
over all other engine-driven aircraft.

(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other head-on,
or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right.

(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way
and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to
pass well clear.

(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing,
have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the
surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an
aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting
to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are
approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower
altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule
to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake
that aircraft.

[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-282, 69
FR 44880, July 27, 2004]

Loek writes:

How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic accident??
(low time and failure to give right of way) Ah, you both were there, right?

It's a simple process of elimination. VFR conditions, both pilots required to
see and avoid, tow plane has the right of way. The Cirrus aircraft failed to
see and avoid and failed to yield right of way. There aren't too many other
possibilities. It's unlikely to be a mechanical failure or weather.

And as I've said, this has happened before, also with a Cirrus. Quite an eerie
coincidence.

You may have read something I don't know about yet, but until you have
proven facts on paper there is no way you can give the Cirrus pilot the
blame / fault for this.

Sure you can. Unless you can think of some other possible explanation?

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
..

Cirrus is the "fork-tailed doctor killer" of our era. The old V-tailed
Bonanzas tended to attract low-time, low-competence, high-income pilots,
and
Cirrus aircraft are doing the same thing. I don't know if Beechcraft ever
deliberately tried to target that market as Cirrus is doing, though.

I remember that back in the mid 60s, Flying magazine had
an article on doctor involved accidents. At that time doctors,
as a group, were involved in about a third of all fatals in
private GA aircraft. A lot of these doctors were experienced
pilots, and the majority their accidents involved weather.

The conclusion as to why this was happening came down to
one word... arrogance. Being in the business of saving lives
these individuals felt that they could handle any situation.
Oh, and I seem to remember that Bonanzas were involved
in some of the incidents.

On Feb 7, 8:03*pm, "Ian D" wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

...
.



Cirrus is the "fork-tailed doctor killer" of our era. The old V-tailed
Bonanzas tended to attract low-time, low-competence, high-income pilots,
and
Cirrus aircraft are doing the same thing. I don't know if Beechcraft ever
deliberately tried to target that market as Cirrus is doing, though.

I remember that back in the mid 60s, Flying magazine had
an article on doctor involved accidents. *At that time doctors,
as a group, were involved in about a third of all fatals in
private GA aircraft. *A lot of these doctors were experienced
pilots, and the majority their accidents involved weather.

The conclusion as to why this was happening came down to
one word... arrogance. *Being in the business of saving lives
these individuals felt that they could handle any situation.
Oh, and I seem to remember that Bonanzas were involved
in some of the incidents.

This is mostly true. I had many doctors and lawyers as students during
the Bonanza accident period.
In many there was indeed an arrogance, and coupled with their natural
desire to achieve a short time line on anything taught to them, many
had retention issues.
The real killer in the Bonanza craze wasn't arrogance per se but a
general lack of proper training in handing an airplane with a VERY
clean wing in instrument conditions. Many of the Bonanza crashes were
the result of pilots getting the aircraft into weather they couldn't
handle. The Bo, being extremely clean, was exceptionally capable of
getting nose low in turns. Many of the fatals involved pilots applying
back pressure when sensing a nose low condition instead of swallowing
the bank FIRST or SIMULTANEOUSLY, thus swallowing the bank before
applying a positive pitch input.
This VERY BASIC ERROR in a nose low condition just served to increase
the nose low condition. It didn't take the Bo long at all to reach Vne
and beyond. At that point many Bo's lost wings to the high g loads
that became available with the greatly increased airspeed.
The Bonanza was and is a fine airplane, but like any airplane,
especially with a slippery wing, on instruments you need to be VERY
careful when recovering from a nose low condition. Arrogance and lack
of basics in a Bonanza nose low on the clocks was a killer equation!
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news:903eb1bf-9d81-4282-8979-
...

This is mostly true. I had many doctors and lawyers as students during
the Bonanza accident period.
In many there was indeed an arrogance, and coupled with their natural
desire to achieve a short time line on anything taught to them, many
had retention issues.
The real killer in the Bonanza craze wasn't arrogance per se but a
general lack of proper training in handing an airplane with a VERY
clean wing in instrument conditions. Many of the Bonanza crashes were
the result of pilots getting the aircraft into weather they couldn't
handle. The Bo, being extremely clean, was exceptionally capable of
getting nose low in turns. Many of the fatals involved pilots applying
back pressure when sensing a nose low condition instead of swallowing
the bank FIRST or SIMULTANEOUSLY, thus swallowing the bank before
applying a positive pitch input.
This VERY BASIC ERROR in a nose low condition just served to increase
the nose low condition. It didn't take the Bo long at all to reach Vne
and beyond. At that point many Bo's lost wings to the high g loads
that became available with the greatly increased airspeed.
The Bonanza was and is a fine airplane, but like any airplane,
especially with a slippery wing, on instruments you need to be VERY
careful when recovering from a nose low condition. Arrogance and lack
of basics in a Bonanza nose low on the clocks was a killer equation!
Dudley Henriques

I wonder if the quickest, safest and least costly solution to a similar
problem might be a couple of hours of glider instruction--and a glider of
medium performance or greater.

Admittedly, this is advocacy above my own experience; but it is the first
place (other than a true-motion sim) that I would look for my own use. And
besides, that glider intro flight was a lot of fun!

Peter

On Feb 7, 9:26*pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news:903eb1bf-9d81-4282-8979-
...

This is mostly true. I had many doctors and lawyers as students during
the Bonanza accident period.
In many there was indeed an arrogance, and coupled with their natural
desire to achieve a short time line on anything taught to them, many
had retention issues.
The real killer in the Bonanza craze wasn't arrogance per se but a
general lack of proper training in handing an airplane with a VERY
clean wing in instrument conditions. Many of the Bonanza crashes were
the result of pilots getting the aircraft into weather they couldn't
handle. The Bo, being extremely clean, was exceptionally capable of
getting nose low in turns. Many of the fatals involved pilots applying
back pressure when sensing a nose low condition instead of swallowing
the bank FIRST or SIMULTANEOUSLY, thus swallowing the bank before
applying a positive pitch input.
This VERY BASIC ERROR in a nose low condition just served to increase
the nose low condition. It didn't take the Bo long at all to reach Vne
and beyond. At that point many Bo's lost wings to the high g loads
that became available with the greatly increased airspeed.
The Bonanza was and is a fine airplane, but like any airplane,
especially with a slippery wing, on instruments you need to be VERY
careful when recovering from a nose low condition. Arrogance and lack
of basics in a Bonanza nose low on the clocks was a killer equation!
Dudley Henriques

I wonder if the quickest, safest and least costly solution to a similar
problem might be a couple of hours of glider instruction--and a glider of
medium performance or greater.

Admittedly, this is advocacy above my own experience; but it is the first
place (other than a true-motion sim) that I would look for my own use. *And
besides, that glider intro flight was a lot of fun!

Peter

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news:903eb1bf-9d81-4282-8979-
...

This is mostly true. I had many doctors and lawyers as students during
the Bonanza accident period.
In many there was indeed an arrogance, and coupled with their natural
desire to achieve a short time line on anything taught to them, many
had retention issues.
The real killer in the Bonanza craze wasn't arrogance per se but a
general lack of proper training in handing an airplane with a VERY
clean wing in instrument conditions. Many of the Bonanza crashes were
the result of pilots getting the aircraft into weather they couldn't
handle. The Bo, being extremely clean, was exceptionally capable of
getting nose low in turns. Many of the fatals involved pilots applying
back pressure when sensing a nose low condition instead of swallowing
the bank FIRST or SIMULTANEOUSLY, thus swallowing the bank before
applying a positive pitch input.
This VERY BASIC ERROR in a nose low condition just served to increase
the nose low condition. It didn't take the Bo long at all to reach Vne
and beyond. At that point many Bo's lost wings to the high g loads
that became available with the greatly increased airspeed.
The Bonanza was and is a fine airplane, but like any airplane,
especially with a slippery wing, on instruments you need to be VERY
careful when recovering from a nose low condition. Arrogance and lack
of basics in a Bonanza nose low on the clocks was a killer equation!
Dudley Henriques

I wonder if the quickest, safest and least costly solution to a similar
problem might be a couple of hours of glider instruction--and a glider of
medium performance or greater.

Admittedly, this is advocacy above my own experience; but it is the first
place (other than a true-motion sim) that I would look for my own use. And
besides, that glider intro flight was a lot of fun!

Peter

I've always advocated glider instruction as a positive factor for any
pilot in a total training regimen. There is no doubt that glider
training can contribute to a better overall powered pilot flying a
powered aircraft. Along the same line of reasoning, aerobatics is of
immeasurable benefit in increasing basic skill sets to higher levels.
The bottom line in any training regimen involves not only the material
covered but how the time is spent by both the instructor and the
student as they interface together to form the teacher/student
equation.
If I had to pinpoint a single attribute to be the most important a
pilot could posses exiting a training program it would be the
acquirement of a sound sense of professional judgment coupled with
good basic flying skills.
In many of the Bonanza crashes, this factor unfortunately didn't seem
to be present.
DH