I think I know why so many Cirrus' crash

Ken Reed wrote:

2) Four of the six are flying again (the fifth deployment just occurred
this weekend).

You mean four of the aircraft? That's rather impressive considering that a
deployment is supposed to total the aircraft.

Or do you mean four of the pilots?

- Andrew

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

Ken Reed wrote:

2) Four of the six are flying again (the fifth deployment just occurred
this weekend).

Do you have more details on the restoration process? Earlier reports indicated
that using the chute would total the aircraft.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

Four of the six are flying again (the fifth deployment just occurred
this weekend).


You mean four of the aircraft? That's rather impressive considering that a
deployment is supposed to total the aircraft.

Or do you mean four of the pilots?


Aircraft.
---
Ken Reed

Four of the six are flying again (the fifth deployment just
occurred this weekend).

Do you have more details on the restoration process? Earlier reports
indicated that using the chute would total the aircraft.

True. It turns out that most can be made airworthy again without
tremendous expense.
---
Ken Reed

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

Do me a favor and remind me never to speak up on this group, okay? I
can't believe the extent to which some of you people get off on bashing
each other. Flying is like a brotherhood, except that the learned older
brothers often don't grow up, move out of the house, and stop picking on
little bro. Ma keeps having kids, and 50-year-old big brother Larry
can't wait to smack them around a bit.

From what I understand, what we're talking about here is a guy who
heard on the radio that there may be conflicting traffic about to cross
his path. It caused him to spin his head around enough that he lost
track of his airspeed to one extent or another--could have been 1 knot
off, could have been 20. He never mentioned how far off the mark he
was. He made what at worst could be called a "mistake," which happens
to everyone, then he used his best judgement to get back into his zone
of comfort. And people are bent out of shape about this?

Of course, the whole reason HE brought it up was to bash ANOTHER
pilot... Sheesh.


Newps wrote:

OK, I though you meant that if the two crashed in to each other, thereby
proving that he cut him off. Losing control of ones airspeed because
someone on the frequency starts talking is one of the dumbest things I
have heard.

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
"John Doe" wrote:

You missed my point. It sounded like the OP was trying to put blame for
his
inability to control airspeed and land on the fault of the Cirrus pilot
behind him. So if an accident had occurerd, fault would not lie with the
PIC but the Cirrus pilot. Had all that occurred, I would love to hear
what
the lawyers would say about that.....that's all, nothing more than
interesting speculation.

I was not putting blame on the Cirrus pilot for me being fast. I was
blaming him for making a non-standard pattern entry when other
aircraft were using the standard.

"John, the problem was the Cirrus pilot"

"his poor/unsafe pattern entry did distract me from
proper airspeed management. Thus he was the one creating unsafe
conditions."

As you haven't said, how fast were you and at what point in your approach?

MOO

George,

Earlier reports indicated
that using the chute would total the aircraft.


It seems to depend very much on where the airplane comes down. The
first "restorable" was the one in Texas, IIRC, which came down in dense
bushes. That seems to cushion the impact enough to not do much damage
as opposed to, say, asphalt.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)