SR-22 Crash, with a twist

Glassy water makes the pilot think he is higher than he actually is.
Numerous crashes from this effect.

I wonder if the FAA will initiate an action, and if so will the insurance
carrier cover the loss?

At the very least this falls under the "careless and negligent" rule.

Why does it seem like there's a disproportionate number of Cirrus flyers
making questionable flying decisions- losing control at high altitude and
popping the chute, taking off into low IMC after major maintenance, etc.

There is a Cirrus owner on our field who gained himself the nickname "super
pull up"- he would accelerate down the runway at low altitude after
rotating, and then do a high g chandelle type maneuver. This usually
occurred in front of a bunch of experienced warbird/aerobatic pilots, all of
whom weren't too impressed.

The guy finally overheard someone refer to him as "super pull up" one day,
and got the hint.

Viperdoc wrote:
I wonder if the FAA will initiate an action, and if so will the insurance
carrier cover the loss?

At the very least this falls under the "careless and negligent" rule
Good question. Also, even though it is only a request, he was in the
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area where pilots are requested to fly
at least 2000' AGL. This can't help either.

tom

On 2/27/2007 11:14:21 AM, "Viperdoc" wrote:

There is a Cirrus owner on our field who gained himself the nickname "super
pull up"- he would accelerate down the runway at low altitude after
rotating, and then do a high g chandelle type maneuver. This usually
occurred in front of a bunch of experienced warbird/aerobatic pilots, all of
whom weren't too impressed.

It must be the "low-time pilot" excitement in experiencing the increased
G-forces. The Cirrus that spun into the ground here in upstate NY back in
2002, killing both pilot/owners inside, was seen at a nearby airport 30
minutes before the crash performing the exact same maneuvers.

The NTSB accident report has a quote from a witness stating this fact.

--
Peter

The same guy who owns the SR-22 also bought a Sukhoi-29 as his first tail
dragger. He got his tail wheel endorsement by the seller in less than 6
hours. These planes can potentially be a handful even with experienced
pilots- they sit pretty nose high, no visibility, and the torque goes the
"wrong" way.

Not unexpectedly he had a bad landing, dropping it in. As a result he needed
a new prop (an expensive MT), along with some significant repairs. Luckily
he didn't get hurt, other than his pride.

Peter R. writes:

It must be the "low-time pilot" excitement in experiencing the increased
G-forces. The Cirrus that spun into the ground here in upstate NY back in
2002, killing both pilot/owners inside, was seen at a nearby airport 30
minutes before the crash performing the exact same maneuvers.

The quest for strong, visceral sensation seems to afflict many GA pilots.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Viperdoc writes:

Why does it seem like there's a disproportionate number of Cirrus flyers
making questionable flying decisions- losing control at high altitude and
popping the chute, taking off into low IMC after major maintenance, etc.

Many Cirrus owners are probably low-time pilots. Inexperienced pilots
represent the majority of GA accidents due to pilot error.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Feb 27, 11:01 am, "Doug" wrote:
Glassy water makes the pilot think he is higher than he actually is.
Numerous crashes from this effect.

True enough, but he shouldn't have been THAT close to the water's
surface to begin with IMHO. From what I've read here (admittedly my
only source) it sounds like this guy was trying to recreate the
Canadian SNJ waterskiing formation event.

Doug,

Glassy water makes the pilot think he is higher than he actually is.
Numerous crashes from this effect.


And that effect would account for a difference of (let's assume that
would have been a sensible altitude) 500 AGL and 0 AGL? You must be
joking. Glassy water can be a problem for landings with FLOAT planes.
The Cirrus isn't.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
And that effect would account for a difference of (let's assume that
would have been a sensible altitude) 500 AGL and 0 AGL? You must be
joking. Glassy water can be a problem for landings with FLOAT planes.
The Cirrus isn't.


Nonsense. They landed. Everybody lived. What's the problem? G




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com