I think I know why so many Cirrus' crash

"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

"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" 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" 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

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.

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

"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

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.

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.

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.