Cirrus crash midair

On Feb 10, 6:53*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
All real airplanes have a large blind spot through an arc that
starts at
the nose, follows the fuselage around to the tail, and continues over the
airplane to the rearmost window or top of the windscreen depending on
model.

So?

Its something real pilots know and compensate for by keeping a good
lookout.

Comes under the heading of "airmanship"

Dear Mx,

I just cannot agree with you. You're reasoning is a little too easy and I
get the impression it only serves the purpose of finger pointing an already
very dead person. (At least I think he is?) His family will be quite happy
with you. Again: you and I were not there so we can not and do not know what
happened exactly. Wild guesses are of no use at all but a healthy discussion
about possible causes is something different and even useful in a group like
this. Leave it to the very experienced and evenly qualified NTSB to find the
root cause of this tragic accident so we all can learn from it. And then we
can take measures to prevent an accident like this from happening again in
the future.

Cheers,

Loek

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

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment. (I don't
know
the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown
reason.
Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of them.

True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other than
simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics,
and in
this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.

Even if something obstructed the pilot's view momentarily or his attention
was
drawn elsewhere, it's still his fault, as he should have sufficient
situational awareness to know of the other aircraft without having to
depend
on a fraction of a second of perception. What about radio calls? What
about
traffic patterns? There are multiple ways in which he should have become
aware
of the other aircraft.

Unless the surviving pilot and passengers from the glider can shed some
insight into this accident, we may never know what actually happened, but
I
don't think it's unreasonable to assume pilot error until proven
otherwise.

There's also the eerie coincidence of there being at least one other
accident
with a Cirrus that happened pretty much exactly the same way, except that
there were survivors.

On Feb 9, 1:54*pm, "Loek" wrote:
Dear Mx,

I just cannot agree with you. You're reasoning is a little too easy and I
get the impression it only serves the purpose of finger pointing an already
very dead person. (At least I think he is?) His family will be quite happy
with you. Again: you and I were not there so we can not and do not know what
happened exactly. Wild guesses are of no use at all but a healthy discussion
about possible causes is something different and even useful in a group like
this. Leave it to the very experienced and evenly qualified NTSB to find the
root cause of this tragic accident so we all can learn from it. And then we
can take measures to prevent an accident like this from happening again in
the future.

Cheers,

Loek

"Mxsmanic" schreef in berichtnews:jnj0n5toiqf1s74ianib127ji2lok5q4ce@4ax .com...

Loek writes:

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment. *(I don't
know
the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown
reason.
Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of them.

True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other than
simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics,
and in
this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.

Even if something obstructed the pilot's view momentarily or his attention
was
drawn elsewhere, it's still his fault, as he should have sufficient
situational awareness to know of the other aircraft without having to
depend
on a fraction of a second of perception. What about radio calls? What
about
traffic patterns? There are multiple ways in which he should have become
aware
of the other aircraft.

Unless the surviving pilot and passengers from the glider can shed some
insight into this accident, we may never know what actually happened, but
I
don't think it's unreasonable to assume pilot error until proven
otherwise.

There's also the eerie coincidence of there being at least one other
accident
with a Cirrus that happened pretty much exactly the same way, except that
there were survivors.

Mx is intentionally trolling you. It is likely he doesn't even
believe half the things he says, he just knows it will prompt people
into argument with him, where he will claim to misunderstand your
views, and come up with hasty conclusions to prompt you guys to
continue the argument. He has done it time and time again. It is
best to just ignore him, although few actually do.

Most folks here are correct as usual. No one knows for sure what
happened, and the investigation isn't complete. It really doesn't
matter who is legally at fault, anyone involved in the accident could
have likely made moves to prevent it. The lesson as usual is to try
and be more aware of your surroundings. It doesn't matter if it was
pilot error or not. It doesn't matter who had the right of way. Only
that constant vigilance can help prevent you from being in the same
positions as any of these poor folks.

Also, I am not trying to be callous here. My thoughts go out to the
people affected by this accident. The above is just trying to say
that there is something to learn or a reminder here for the people
left behind. Finger pointing helps no one.

Regards,
Mike

Hi Loek,

I wouldn't worry about it, mate - looks like he's bugged out of here.

Regards,
John Ward


"Loek" wrote in message
...
????

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.

John Ward wrote:
Hi Loek,

I wouldn't worry about it, mate - looks like he's bugged out of here.



groan..............

:-))

I guess so...

Loek

"John Ward" schreef in bericht
...
Hi Loek,

I wouldn't worry about it, mate - looks like he's bugged out of here.

Regards,
John Ward


"Loek" wrote in message
...
????

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.

What's up MM?

Pain in the .. ?? :-))

Loek

"ManhattanMan" schreef in bericht
...
John Ward wrote:
Hi Loek,

I wouldn't worry about it, mate - looks like he's bugged out of here.



groan..............

I fully agree, Mike.

Yes, I know Mx some time and I know he loves to troll. But for some reason
this time I had to react. Fine, so he's had his share of fun for what that's
worth...

Cheers,

Loek

"Scien" schreef in bericht
...
On Feb 9, 1:54 pm, "Loek" wrote:
Dear Mx,

I just cannot agree with you. You're reasoning is a little too easy and I
get the impression it only serves the purpose of finger pointing an
already
very dead person. (At least I think he is?) His family will be quite happy
with you. Again: you and I were not there so we can not and do not know
what
happened exactly. Wild guesses are of no use at all but a healthy
discussion
about possible causes is something different and even useful in a group
like
this. Leave it to the very experienced and evenly qualified NTSB to find
the
root cause of this tragic accident so we all can learn from it. And then
we
can take measures to prevent an accident like this from happening again in
the future.

Cheers,

Loek

"Mxsmanic" schreef in
berichtnews:jnj0n5toiqf1s74ianib127ji2lok5q4ce@4ax .com...

Loek writes:

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment. (I don't
know
the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown
reason.
Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of
them.

True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other
than
simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics,
and in
this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.

Even if something obstructed the pilot's view momentarily or his
attention
was
drawn elsewhere, it's still his fault, as he should have sufficient
situational awareness to know of the other aircraft without having to
depend
on a fraction of a second of perception. What about radio calls? What
about
traffic patterns? There are multiple ways in which he should have become
aware
of the other aircraft.

Unless the surviving pilot and passengers from the glider can shed some
insight into this accident, we may never know what actually happened,
but
I
don't think it's unreasonable to assume pilot error until proven
otherwise.

There's also the eerie coincidence of there being at least one other
accident
with a Cirrus that happened pretty much exactly the same way, except
that
there were survivors.

Mx is intentionally trolling you. It is likely he doesn't even
believe half the things he says, he just knows it will prompt people
into argument with him, where he will claim to misunderstand your
views, and come up with hasty conclusions to prompt you guys to
continue the argument. He has done it time and time again. It is
best to just ignore him, although few actually do.

Most folks here are correct as usual. No one knows for sure what
happened, and the investigation isn't complete. It really doesn't
matter who is legally at fault, anyone involved in the accident could
have likely made moves to prevent it. The lesson as usual is to try
and be more aware of your surroundings. It doesn't matter if it was
pilot error or not. It doesn't matter who had the right of way. Only
that constant vigilance can help prevent you from being in the same
positions as any of these poor folks.

Also, I am not trying to be callous here. My thoughts go out to the
people affected by this accident. The above is just trying to say
that there is something to learn or a reminder here for the people
left behind. Finger pointing helps no one.

Regards,
Mike

In article
,
george wrote:

On Feb 9, 7:34*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
george writes:
And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose

A Cirrus isn't a sailplane. And a pilot with a blind spot needs to fly in
such
a way that he makes allowances for his inability to see in that blind spot.

http://www.standardcirrus.org/
Wow. Mixedup is wrong again.
Colour me unsurprised

What is it about this guy that people must jump to contradict him even
when what he says is totally reasonable?

It's completely clear in context that "A Cirrus" in this case refers to
one of the single engine aircraft built by Cirrus Design, NOT to one of
the two models of sailplane built by Schempp-Hirth. Yes, there are
sailplanes called "Cirrus", but this one was not a sailplane, just as he
says.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

In article ,
"Private" wrote:

"Mike Ash" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Mike Ash writes:

It's trivial to imagine many other plausible explanations. The others
are not LIKELY, but there are tons of scenarios which are plausible.

Such as?

Such as, Cirrus pilot had a heart attack thirty seconds before, Cirrus
had an engine failure, Cirrus hit large bird whose entrails covered the
forward view, etc.

If they are not likely, why bother to imagine them? The purpose of an
accident investigation is to find the most probable cause for an
accident, not
to find alternative but unlikely explanations that exonerate the pilot.

You said "plausible", not "relevant to the purpose of an accident
investigation".

Nice to see that you're still twisting out of every argument to make
yourself look good, but you forgot to do your usual excessive snipping
this time around.

Mike,
Please don't feed the trolls.
It is similar to mud wrestling with pigs.
Real pilots accept that it is better to avoid bad weather rather than
attempt to change it.

I'm a glider pilot, so I get a lot of fun out of flying in what other
pilots would commonly consider to be "bad weather". Likewise, I'm just
having fun here, not attempting a serious discussion.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon