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

I'm retired now, John. Also for the investigation board.
At this moment I am involved with the selection of candidate pilots for our
Air Force as a part timer. Lots of good fun and even self motivating!

Loek

"John Ward" schreef in bericht
...
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

Hi Loek,

Got it!

Thanks for the info', mate. :-))

Just out of curiosity, what are your fighter pilots flying these days?

Regards,
John Ward

"Loek" wrote in message
...
I'm retired now, John. Also for the investigation board.
At this moment I am involved with the selection of candidate pilots for
our Air Force as a part timer. Lots of good fun and even self motivating!

Loek

"John Ward" schreef in bericht
...
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

"John Ward" writes:

Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot

He's a current ass.

--
The funny thing about driving your car off a cliff, I bet you're
still hitting those brakes.
- Jack Handey

You should have that seen to.



"Bug Dout" wrote in message
...
"John Ward" writes:

Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot

He's a current ass.

--
The funny thing about driving your car off a cliff, I bet you're
still hitting those brakes.
- Jack Handey

????

Do you mind helping me on the gramma here, Bug Dout... I'm not sure how to
read this in the correct context?? Thanks

Loek

"Bug Dout" schreef in bericht
...
"John Ward" writes:

Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot

He's a current ass.

"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]