I think I know why so many Cirrus' crash

"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

"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 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

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

"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

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.

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 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.

"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

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.