Cirrus report

This from the Aero-News Propwash newsletter this morning:

NTSB Identification: MIA04LA070
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, April 10, 2004 in N. Lauderdale,
FL
Aircraft: Cirrus Design Corp. SR22, registration: N916LJ
Injuries: 1 Uninjured. [emphasis added by
ANN]

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 April 10, 2004, about 0956 eastern daylight time, a Cirrus
Design Corp. SR22, N916LJ, registered to Cellventures of NY, Inc.,
collided with trees during descent near North Lauderdale, Florida,
after the pilot intentionally activated the Cirrus Airframe
Parachute System (CAPS). Instrument meteorological conditions (IMC)
prevailed at the time and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight
plan was filed for the 14 CFR Part 91 personal flight from the Fort
Lauderdale Executive Airport, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to the Palm
Beach International Airport, West Palm Beach, Florida. The airplane
was substantially damaged and the private-rated pilot, the sole
occupant, was not injured. The flight originated about 6 minutes
earlier from the Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport.

The pilot reported no discrepancies either during the preflight
inspection nor during the engine run-up before takeoff. He obtained
his IFR clearance, and shortly after takeoff the flight encountered
IMC at 400 feet mean sea level. While communicating with the Miami
Air Route Traffic Control Center and climbing at 800
feet-per-minute (FPM), the vertical speed indicator suddenly
decreased to 0, then increased to 2,000 FPM, then went back to 0.
He also reported there was no turbulence encountered during this
time. He advised air traffic control (ATC) that the flight needed
to return, and was vectored heading 270 degrees, and cleared to
climb to 2,000 feet. At that point, the altimeter began bouncing
with very large deflections, then the attitude indicator did not
agree with the turn coordinator. He did not activate the alternate
static source, and advised the controller that he was "losing
gauges" and he would be unable to execute an instrument landing
system approach to the departure airport. He then advised the
controller that he was going to activate the CAPS, and he did. He
noted that following the deployment of the CAPS, the emergency
locator transmitter activated, and his door separated. The airplane
descended reasonably flat into trees, with most of the damage to
the airplane occurring because of the tree contact and not the
ground contact. He further reported he did not feel the point of
ground contact.

Preliminary examination of the static system of the airplane
revealed the lines contained water between the static port openings
and the alternate static air valve; the water was retained for
analysis. Additionally, testing of the pitot static system from the
alternate air source to the altimeter and vertical speed indicator
revealed no discrepancies with the instruments. Bench testing of
the attitude indicator and turn coordinator revealed no evidence of
failure or malfunction.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

In article , Cub Driver
wrote:

This from the Aero-News Propwash newsletter this morning:

NTSB Identification: MIA04LA070
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, April 10, 2004 in N. Lauderdale,
FL
Aircraft: Cirrus Design Corp. SR22, registration: N916LJ
Injuries: 1 Uninjured. [emphasis added by
ANN]

Preliminary examination of the static system of the airplane
revealed the lines contained water between the static port openings
and the alternate static air valve; the water was retained for
analysis. Additionally, testing of the pitot static system from the
alternate air source to the altimeter and vertical speed indicator
revealed no discrepancies with the instruments. Bench testing of
the attitude indicator and turn coordinator revealed no evidence of
failure or malfunction.
all the best -- Dan Ford

That, is why partial panel training is imports!
Not an airplane problem.

Ah, so he lost his static system while in the soup, became confused, and
used that old WW II era instrument letdown:

needle, ball, ripcord.

Seems an awfully expensive alternative to just opening the alternate static
port. I can certainly see it happening, though. It is easy during training
to neglect these emergencies. Guess what emergency procedure I am going to
be hammering on my students today?

I wonder if during all the confusion he didn't manage to tumble one of his
gyros.

Cub,

Preliminary examination of the static system of the airplane
revealed the lines contained water between the static port openings
and the alternate static air valve;


Vacuum sucks...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

... Instrument meteorological conditions (IMC)
prevailed at the time and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight
plan was filed...


... the private-rated pilot, the sole
occupant, was not injured.


Private-rated pilot flying IFR in IMC? How does this work? Can/should an
IFR student do this?
-harry

"Harry M." wrote in message
...
... Instrument meteorological conditions (IMC)
prevailed at the time and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight
plan was filed...


... the private-rated pilot, the sole
occupant, was not injured.


Private-rated pilot flying IFR in IMC? How does this work? Can/should an
IFR student do this?

No, not supposed to. But the report may be wrong and he might have the
instrument rating. I paid more attention to the part about him not trying
the alternate static source and about the water between the alternate source
valve and the primary static source.

From the report it sounded like he got sufficiently flustered that,
regardless of the cause or possible trivial remedy, the chute was his best
option. If this is the case then I would question his training and
currency.

"Harry M." wrote:

Private-rated pilot flying IFR in IMC? How does this work? Can/should an
IFR student do this?

The reporter obviously meant that the pilot has a private pilot's certificate. I
would assume that he also has an instrument rating, since he filed an instrument
flight plan. Personally, I think a student pursuing an instrument rating should get
some time with an instructor in real IMC, but not solo.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

Vacuum sucks...

This was water in the static line, not a vacuum system line.

Is there any airplane that does not have a static system? Isn't barometric
altitude sensing required under IFR?

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...

No, not supposed to. But the report may be wrong and he might have the
instrument rating. I paid more attention to the part about him not trying

"Private rated" in this context means he has a private certificate rather
than a commercial or ATP certificate. It does not refer to whether he is
IFR-rated. If he were not IFR rated then almost for sure this would have
been specifically mentioned by the NTSB and included as part of the probable
cause.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...

If he were not IFR rated then almost for sure this would have
been specifically mentioned by the NTSB and included as part of the
probable
cause.

They don't include probable causes in preliminary reports. This is just a
statement of facts. A probable cause will come out in a year or two . . .
Or perhaps tomorrow on this one since the probable cause kinda smacks you
upside the face.

--
Jim Fisher