http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/scca/33645/

--------------------------------------
DW

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:39:10 -0400, "Darkwing"
<theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
>:

>http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/scca/33645/

SPEED Touring Car Driver DeCastro Perishes In Plane Accident
Written by: SCCA Communications
Mohave County, Ariz. – 10/27/2006

Lucho DeCastro (SCCA photo)

SCCA Pro Racing SPEED Touring Car driver Lucho DeCastro (44), his
wife and two children were killed in a private plane crash
Wednesday in northwestern Arizona, the Associated Press reported
Thursday.

According to the AP report, Ian Gregor, spokesman for the Federal
Aviation Administration, said the single-engine plane crashed
about noon Wednesday about 60 miles east of Las Vegas after its
pilot reported icing on the plane's wings. ...
Gregor said the plane, a Cirrus SR-22, was on its way to Phoenix
from the San Francisco Bay Area. ...

The DeCastro family—Lucho, Laura (41), Nadia (7) and Trevor (4),
were reported as the only passengers.

------------------------------
From the tracks available here:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N121LD/history/20061024/0129Z/KMRY/KRNO
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N121LD
it would seem the late Mr. DeCastro was comfortable at 14,000' and
could hold a straight course line.

------------------------------

It would appear Mr. DeCastro was a qualified commercial rated pilot:

FAA's airmans database:
https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/default.asp

LUIZ REIS DE CASTRO
Address

Street RUA DR ALFREDO BARCELOS 310/201
City RIO DE JANEIRO State
County Zip Code
Country BRAZIL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Medical

No Medical Available

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CertIficates

1 of 2

DOI : 12/10/1977
CertIficate: COMMERCIAL PILOT

Rating(s):

COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE

CertIficates

2 of 2

DOI : 03/02/1976
CertIficate: PRIVATE PILOT (FOREIGN BASED)

Rating(s):

PRIVATE PILOT (Foreign Based)
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND

Limits

ISSUED ON BASIS OF AND VALID ONLY WHEN ACCOMPANIED BY BRAZILIAN
PILOT LICENSE NR 23.338.

NOT VALID FOR AGRICULTURAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS.


-----------------------------

FAA Registry
N-Number Inquiry Results


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

N121LD is Assigned

Aircraft Description

Serial Number 1670 Type Registration Corporation
Manufacturer Name CIRRUS DESIGN CORP
Certificate Issue Date 03/17/2006
Model SR22 Status Valid
Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Single-Engine Type Engine Reciprocating
Pending Number Change None Dealer No
Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 50054147
MFR Year 2005 Fractional Owner NO


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registered Owner

Name INNOVATIVE HOSPITALITY SYSTEMS LLC
Street 4901 IBERVILLE ST
City NEW ORLEANS State LOUISIANA Zip Code 70119-4333
County ORLEANS
Country UNITED STATES


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Airworthiness

Engine Manufacturer CONT MOTOR Classification Standard
Engine Model IO-550 SERIES Category Normal

A/W Date 11/07/2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Owner Names

None

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Temporary Certificate

None

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fuel Modifications

None

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.sos.louisiana.gov/public/Corp_newsletter/NewCorp_20050125.txt

NEW DOMESTIC FILINGS: 01/15/05 THRU 01/21/05 PAGE 1

DOMESTIC CHARTERS:

35860742K 01/20/2005 INNOVATIVE HOSPITALITY SYSTEMS, LLC 4901
IBERVILLE STREET NEW ORLEANS, LA 70119
Agent: LUIS DE CASTRO 4901 IBERVILLE STREET NEW ORLEANS, LA
70119
Member/Manager LUIS DE CASTRO, 4901 IBERVILLE STREET NEW
ORLEANS, LA 70119

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:39:10 -0400, "Darkwing"
> <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
> >:
>
>>http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/scca/33645/
>
<SNIP>

Awful deal. Looked like he was well qualified which only goes to show that
IMC in possible icing conditions is serious business.

---------------------------------------------
DW

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote

> Awful deal. Looked like he was well qualified which only goes to show that IMC
> in possible icing conditions is serious business.

I've gotta wonder why he didn't use the parachute, or if he did, why it didn't
save him. I did not read if he did use the parachute, or not. Anyone know the
answer to that?
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote:

>"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote
>
>> Awful deal. Looked like he was well qualified which only goes to show that IMC
>> in possible icing conditions is serious business.
>
>I've gotta wonder why he didn't use the parachute, or if he did, why it didn't
>save him. I did not read if he did use the parachute, or not. Anyone know the
>answer to that?
>--
>Jim in NC
>
Maybe I am too dense but if icing conditions were forecast as likely
doesn't it make sense to AVOID the ice in the first place? The
parachute should not be a substitute for proper flight planning and
judgement.

Ron Lee

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote
>
>> Awful deal. Looked like he was well qualified which only goes to show
>> that IMC in possible icing conditions is serious business.
>
> I've gotta wonder why he didn't use the parachute, or if he did, why it
> didn't save him. I did not read if he did use the parachute, or not.
> Anyone know the answer to that?
> --
> Jim in NC

According to the SpeedTV article it was not known if the chute was used in
some capacity, my guess would be no.

----------------------------------------
DW

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>>"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>> Awful deal. Looked like he was well qualified which only goes to show
>>> that IMC
>>> in possible icing conditions is serious business.
>>
>>I've gotta wonder why he didn't use the parachute, or if he did, why it
>>didn't
>>save him. I did not read if he did use the parachute, or not. Anyone
>>know the
>>answer to that?
>>--
>>Jim in NC
>>
> Maybe I am too dense but if icing conditions were forecast as likely
> doesn't it make sense to AVOID the ice in the first place? The
> parachute should not be a substitute for proper flight planning and
> judgement.
>
> Ron Lee

Therein lies the perceived problem with the Cirrus IMO. Launching into
possible adverse weather with the chute as backup.

------------------------------------------------
DW

Darkwing <heducksmailTyahoo.com> wrote:

> Therein lies the perceived problem with the Cirrus IMO. Launching into
> possible adverse weather with the chute as backup.

As opposed to having a plan B for encountering adverse weather. Adverse
weather in and of itself doesn't always mean not launching, IME.

--
Peter

>can't see who wrote this:
> > Maybe I am too dense but if icing conditions were forecast as likely
> > doesn't it make sense to AVOID the ice in the first place? The
> > parachute should not be a substitute for proper flight planning and
> > judgement.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but I heard someone say if the plane
can't fly because of icing, the parachute won't work because of the
icing, either. I'm not a skydiver or scientist ... is that true? Is a
parachute of no value when there's icing?

> wrote:

> Maybe this is a dumb question, but I heard someone say if the plane
> can't fly because of icing, the parachute won't work because of the
> icing, either. I'm not a skydiver or scientist ... is that true? Is a
> parachute of no value when there's icing?

Since most ice build along the leading edges of the wing, the gear, and the
prob blades, I cannot imagine how that would impact the ballistic parachute
that is located on the top of the aircraft, just behind the cabin.


--
Peter

There is the chance that the parachute will ice up itself; when deployed
in icing conditions. If long enough(duration) in icing conditions there
is a risk of collapse. Of course it will deploy but it is not made to
collect ice and function properly.

wrote:

>>can't see who wrote this:
>>
>>>Maybe I am too dense but if icing conditions were forecast as likely
>>>doesn't it make sense to AVOID the ice in the first place? The
>>>parachute should not be a substitute for proper flight planning and
>>>judgement.
>
>
> Maybe this is a dumb question, but I heard someone say if the plane
> can't fly because of icing, the parachute won't work because of the
> icing, either. I'm not a skydiver or scientist ... is that true? Is a
> parachute of no value when there's icing?

The Visitor > wrote:
> There is the chance that the parachute will ice up itself; when deployed
> in icing conditions. If long enough(duration) in icing conditions there
> is a risk of collapse. Of course it will deploy but it is not made to
> collect ice and function properly.

Thank you. That was my question ... not whether or not a parachute could
sustain an airplane with ice, but whether or not a parachute itself is
susceptible to ice and resulting failure.

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:11:57 -0700, wrote:

>The Visitor > wrote:
>> There is the chance that the parachute will ice up itself; when deployed
>> in icing conditions. If long enough(duration) in icing conditions there
>> is a risk of collapse. Of course it will deploy but it is not made to
>> collect ice and function properly.
>
>Thank you. That was my question ... not whether or not a parachute could
>sustain an airplane with ice, but whether or not a parachute itself is
>susceptible to ice and resulting failure.

http://fl250.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_fl250_archive.html

Check the "Craziest Pirep Ever" section.

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:11:57 -0700, wrote:
>
> >The Visitor > wrote:
> >> There is the chance that the parachute will ice up itself; when
deployed
> >> in icing conditions. If long enough(duration) in icing conditions there
> >> is a risk of collapse. Of course it will deploy but it is not made to
> >> collect ice and function properly.
> >
> >Thank you. That was my question ... not whether or not a parachute could
> >sustain an airplane with ice, but whether or not a parachute itself is
> >susceptible to ice and resulting failure.
>
> http://fl250.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_fl250_archive.html
>
> Check the "Craziest Pirep Ever" section.

Isn't there a difference between known icing, forecast probable icing, and
forecast possible icing--in addition to the severity of said conditions?

Peter

> wrote in message
...
> The Visitor > wrote:
>> There is the chance that the parachute will ice up itself; when deployed
>> in icing conditions. If long enough(duration) in icing conditions there
>> is a risk of collapse. Of course it will deploy but it is not made to
>> collect ice and function properly.
>
> Thank you. That was my question ... not whether or not a parachute could
> sustain an airplane with ice, but whether or not a parachute itself is
> susceptible to ice and resulting failure.

Bogus answers.

The amount of time under chute is brief, and significant icing would not be
likely in that amount of time. Even if ice did build up somewhat, this is not
an airfoil parachute, like some skydivers use, so performance degradation would
be minimal, most likely.

The real answer is that the parachute has not been tested to not tear away, at
deployment speeds above 133 knots (I think, but that is close) so there is some
question at what speed it would tear away. Your are a test pilot at speeds
above the maximum tested speed, but it might hold and save you at speeds higher
than that. The fact that icing was significant would mean that the plane has to
fly faster to stay in the air without stalling, so it might not have been
possible to slow down enough to get under the deployment speed. It seems like a
intentional flat spin would slow you down enough, to me, but that is just an
idea.

The real rub is that because a totaled airplane is likely to be the result of
deployment, and saving your life is not guaranteed, so a pilot is liable to try
to fly it down and land, and if the plane stalls and spins in at too low of an
altitude, there is no time for the chute to save you. This is a possible
scenario in this accident.

We don't know why he flew into the icing. It is obviously best not to fly into
icing, thinking the chute will save you. Anything after that is a gamble.
--
Jim in NC

"Peter Dohm" > wrote:

>Isn't there a difference between known icing, forecast probable icing, and
>forecast possible icing--in addition to the severity of said conditions?
>
>Peter

Not to me. I won't fly anywhere near any of those.

Ron Lee

Peter Clark > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:11:57 -0700, wrote:
>>Thank you. That was my question ... not whether or not a parachute
>>could sustain an airplane with ice, but whether or not a parachute
>>itself is susceptible to ice and resulting failure.
>
> http://fl250.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_fl250_archive.html
>
> Check the "Craziest Pirep Ever" section.

I searched the NTSB database for non-fatal Cirrus accidents that mentioned
icing and this looks like it may be the report for the above mentioned
accident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060118X00086&key=1

The narrative makes it clear the pilot had gonzo amounts of experience, yet
seemed oblivious to the on-board XM Satellite Radio AIRMET updates and
relied on weather reports that were out-of-date when he departed.

This pilot doesn't fit the alleged pattern of low-time but financially
well-off pilot that people are accusing Cirrus of marketing their product.

> >Isn't there a difference between known icing, forecast probable icing,
and
> >forecast possible icing--in addition to the severity of said conditions?
> >
> >Peter
>
> Not to me. I won't fly anywhere near any of those.
>
> Ron Lee
>
I should have been a bit more thorough in my post.

The question as asked was regulatory; but I had neglected to ask whether the
icing conditions became known as a result of the Cirrus pilot's pirep. A
search revealed that the icing conditions were predicted by the NWS,
although transmitted in a manner other than expected, and previously known
to ATC. All in all, I was left with more questions than answers and much
food for thought.

Peter

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 04:37:18 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Peter Clark > wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:11:57 -0700, wrote:
>>>Thank you. That was my question ... not whether or not a parachute
>>>could sustain an airplane with ice, but whether or not a parachute
>>>itself is susceptible to ice and resulting failure.
>>
>> http://fl250.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_fl250_archive.html
>>
>> Check the "Craziest Pirep Ever" section.
>
>I searched the NTSB database for non-fatal Cirrus accidents that mentioned
>icing and this looks like it may be the report for the above mentioned
>accident:
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060118X00086&key=1
>
>The narrative makes it clear the pilot had gonzo amounts of experience, yet
>seemed oblivious to the on-board XM Satellite Radio AIRMET updates and
>relied on weather reports that were out-of-date when he departed.
>
>This pilot doesn't fit the alleged pattern of low-time but financially
>well-off pilot that people are accusing Cirrus of marketing their product.

Just for the record, I was only addressing the question of whether a
parachute would deal with being pulled in icing and getting the
aircraft back down in one piece, I'm not going anywhere near the
marketing debate.

And of course we now have a sample of exactly one where it's known
that there was severe icing and a chute was popped - who knows if the
next one would be as successful...

wrote:

> Thank you. That was my question ... not whether or not a parachute could
> sustain an airplane with ice, but whether or not a parachute itself is
> susceptible to ice and resulting failure.

Yep even a half-minute in icing is dangerous because it is an unknown. I
would guess totally untested. Many chutes have airflow around and
'through' them (important, it maintains a pressure gradient that way)
and will ice up. And the air flowing through them is actually needed for
them to keep their canopy.

If the ice was bad enough to bring down an aircraft, I would guess a
chute could get plugged in a heartbeat, or two. Flying through colud
tops in my plane I have gotten easily 3/16 of an inch in five seconds.
(disclaimer for the bashers, yes it was legal, known icing package and
ifr clearance) But I was going faster than a chute. But you plug that
chute, it could easily cave in. What could plug it, a 16th, a 32?

Morgans writes:

> The amount of time under chute is brief, and significant icing would not be
> likely in that amount of time.

Sometimes icing can build up quickly, one reason why it is dangerous.
A parachute would not be immune to icing if the airframe was not,
although it might not build up as quickly (since the parachute is not
moving as quickly), and it might have less effect since the parachute
does not act as an airfoil. If it gets too heavy with ice, though, it
might stop doing its job.

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

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20061031X01585&key=1

____________________________________
Posted via Aviatorlive.com
http://www.aviatorlive.com

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20061031X01585&key=1

____________________________________
Posted via Aviatorlive.com
http://www.aviatorlive.com

So it appears the pilot flew from Reno to San Francisco, to South Lake
Tahoe, and on an additional 1-1/2+ hours to the impact site. There
was no post crash fire...

Does the SR22's CG shift much as a result of fuel burn?

Would a glass wing be more prone to having large areas of leading edge
ice break away all at once than one made of aluminum?




On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 07:31:44 -0600, "mdwhitcomb" >
wrote in >:
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20061031X01585&key=1


Identification: LAX07FA021
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, October 25, 2006 in Meadview, AZ
Aircraft: Cirrus SR22, registration: N121LD
Injuries: 4 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may
contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when
the final report has been completed.

On October 25, 2006, at 1208 mountain standard time, a Cirrus
SR22, N121LD, reported icing conditions at 13,000 feet mean sea
level (msl), disappeared from radar, and then impacted terrain
about 24 nautical miles northeast of Meadview, Arizona. The pilot
was operating the airplane under the provisions of 14 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 91. The instrument rated private pilot
and three passengers sustained fatal injuries and the airplane was
destroyed. A combination of visual and meteorological conditions
prevailed along the route of flight and the airplane was being
operated under an instrument flight rules (IFR) clearance. The
pilot departed from Lake Tahoe Airport, South Lake Tahoe,
California, about 1030 Pacific daylight time, and was destined for
the Grand Canyon National Park Airport, Grand Canyon, Arizona.

According to a family friend, the pilot met his wife and two
children in the San Francisco area on October 23. On October 24,
they flew to South Lake Tahoe where they spent the night. On
October 25, the day of the accident, the pilot planned to fly to
the Grand Canyon where he and his family would go hiking.

The airplane was last refueled at a fixed base operator at the
Reno/Tahoe International Airport, Reno, Nevada, on October 23. The
fueling invoice indicated that the right and left fuel tanks were
topped off with the addition of 24.1 gallons of fuel. On the
invoice, the pilot's estimated departure time from the airport was
noted as 1000 on October 24.

A fixed base operator employee at Lake Tahoe Airport stated that
the pilot arrived at the airport on October 24, from Reno. The
airplane was secured to the ramp and no fueling services were
provided. The pilot returned to the airport the following morning
and found frost on the airplane. He and his family waited while
the sun rose and melted the frost accumulation. They departed
about 1030.

The National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge,
an Safety Board specialist from the Office of Research and
Engineering, two Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspectors
from the Las Vegas Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), and
one investigator from FAA Aircraft Accident Investigation
responded to the accident site on October 26, 2007. Additional
investigative personnel from Cirrus Design Corporation, Ballistic
Recovery Systems (BRS), AmSafe Aviation, and Teledyne Continental
Motors, who were parties to the investigation, responded to the
site to assist.

The airplane impacted sloped desert terrain at an elevation of
approximately 4,520 feet msl on a westerly heading. All of the
flight control surfaces were attached or partially attached to the
structure. There was no fire. The wreckage was generally confined
to the impact area, and except for the area immediately
surrounding the wreckage, minimal ground scarring was observed.

The Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) was examined. The
parachute was out of its housing, draped over the empennage and
aft fuselage section of the airframe. Some of the gores (panels
that make up the canopy of the parachute) remained folded. The
suspension lines were intact and undamaged. The deployment cable
was continuous from the cockpit handle aft through the fuselage to
the rocket housing area. The rocket and the deployment bag cover
were located approximately 288 feet east of the accident site.

Based on preliminary weather information obtained by a Safety
Board meteorologist, local weather included AIRMETS (Airman's
Meteorological Information) for icing (approximately 65 nautical
miles northeast of the accident site) and moderate turbulence
(within the accident site area). In addition, a convective SIGMET
(Significant Meteorological Information) was issued for an area
encompassing the accident site. A convective SIGMET implies severe
or greater turbulence, severe icing, and low-level wind shear.

Did the sr22 have the ice protection option that cirrus offer???

____________________________________
Posted via Aviatorlive.com
http://www.aviatorlive.com