You're Not Going To Believe This: Another Cirrus Is Down (Statesville, NC)

Don't forget about the one in Germany earlier this month too...

On October 8, 2006, at 1555 UTC, a Cirrus Design Corp., SR-22, U. S.
registry N147SR, serial number 1970, operated by Air-OPS, sustained
substantial damage when during landing at Karlsruhe-Baden Airport,
Germany, the airplane departed the side of the runway and struck a
fence. The pilot and passenger on board were not injured. Visual
meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The
personal, cross-country flight departed Schwabisch Hall Airpark,
Germany.


Honestly, it's human nature to notice these crashes when they happen so
close together, especially in light of the more famous one earlier in
the month. But I haven't heard of any SR-20 or 22 planes falling out of
the sky because of a severe control failure save for one (think it had
something to do with the linkage to the ailerons). All the rest, as far
as I've heard, have been pilot error related.

--
Guy

All the rest, as far
as I've heard, have been pilot error related.

Yes, and that's what's wrong with the Cirrus.

It's a nice plane and all, but it's being touted as a plane for the
casual pilot. The casual pilot will make more errors. In a Cirrus,
those errors will kill where in a 172 they are less likely to do so.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

All the rest, as far
as I've heard, have been pilot error related.

Yes, and that's what's wrong with the Cirrus.

It's a nice plane and all, but it's being touted as a plane for the
casual pilot. The casual pilot will make more errors. In a Cirrus,
those errors will kill where in a 172 they are less likely to do so.

Jose


You might be right. Wednesday I was midfield downwind at Hanscom, in a Super
Decathlon (taking aerobatic lessons), heading easterly. I was going to be
#3 says the tower but the other two were waaaay out there on straight in
approaches, so I asked the tower for a 360 rather than flying halfway to
England before turning base. ATC says sure BUT to head North for a bit
first as there was a Cirrus behind me.

OK so I turn North and look and yeah he was behind me...RIGHT friggin
behind me! Both I and the CFI were rather ummmm surprised at how close he
was. So I let him blow by, happy that he's in front of me rather than
behind, do my 360 and proceed to land.

Now sure ATC is responsible for the spread but so is the pilot and that
Cirrus was closing I bet. The CFI informs me it's a fast, slippery plane
with a smallish wing so it has to be flown fast to stay in the air.

So it makes me wonder if the Cirrus pilot understood all of that, and the
ramifications of flying a fast plane in the pattern. Not the aircraft's
fault, of course, but as you say - maybe it's not the plane for the casual
pilot.

In article ,
Saville wrote:

So it makes me wonder if the Cirrus pilot understood all of that, and the
ramifications of flying a fast plane in the pattern. Not the aircraft's
fault, of course, but as you say - maybe it's not the plane for the casual
pilot.

Many pilots are clueless in the pattern when it comes to following
slower traffic. They have never been taught and do not have the
capability to process the capabilities of their aircraft relative to the
aircraft they are following. I have encountered this numerous times
while flying a 65 hp Aeronca Champ. Which is why I fly a tight, low
pattern. They expect me to be higher, wider and faster, allowing me to
land without encountering near mid-air conditions.

On the other hand, pilots that fly slower airplanes should also be aware
that they do not need to fly patterns the same size as someone in a 747. You
do not need a five mile final in a 152- it does tend to back up everyone
else in the pattern.

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
On the other hand, pilots that fly slower airplanes should also be aware
that they do not need to fly patterns the same size as someone in a 747.
You do not need a five mile final in a 152- it does tend to back up
everyone else in the pattern.

A lot of it goes back to training. One of the local flight schools from a
towered field teaches B-52 style approaches in their C-172's. That makes
sense for someone who is just attempting his/her first landings, but once
the student has the landing thing figured out, the instructor(s) really,
really need to retrain their students to fly a tighter pattern. They don't.

When they come to my non-towered home field, it makes for a lot of cranky
people in the pattern.

Something that puts a big grin on my face is watching someone at SnF or
Oshkosh *really* fly their airplane in the pattern. The tower asks for a
close tight base and final and the pilot complies, flying a perfectly
coordinated, tight base and short final ending with the airplane rolling out
right on the runway centerline and in position to set the airplane down
exactly where the controller has requested. I love that kind of thing,
regardless of aircraft type.

As opposed to the guy who blunders around, drops to 5' AGL at the runway
threshold with the tower saying "Cessna, fly your airplane 2,000' down the
runway and land on the orange dot". In the meantime, the Cessna is flying
at 5' AGL, wiggling and waggling at minimum airspeed and a half dozen
aircraft are scrambling to maintain adequate spacing behind the bozo who is
flying his Cessna at 45 knots in ground effect.

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
On the other hand, pilots that fly slower airplanes should also be aware
that they do not need to fly patterns the same size as someone in a 747.
You do not need a five mile final in a 152- it does tend to back up
everyone else in the pattern.

A lot of it goes back to training. One of the local flight schools from a
towered field teaches B-52 style approaches in their C-172's. That makes
sense for someone who is just attempting his/her first landings, but once
the student has the landing thing figured out, the instructor(s) really,
really need to retrain their students to fly a tighter pattern. They
don't.

When they come to my non-towered home field, it makes for a lot of cranky
people in the pattern.

Something that puts a big grin on my face is watching someone at SnF or
Oshkosh *really* fly their airplane in the pattern. The tower asks for a
close tight base and final and the pilot complies, flying a perfectly
coordinated, tight base and short final ending with the airplane rolling
out right on the runway centerline and in position to set the airplane
down exactly where the controller has requested. I love that kind of
thing, regardless of aircraft type.

As opposed to the guy who blunders around, drops to 5' AGL at the runway
threshold with the tower saying "Cessna, fly your airplane 2,000' down the
runway and land on the orange dot". In the meantime, the Cessna is flying
at 5' AGL, wiggling and waggling at minimum airspeed and a half dozen
aircraft are scrambling to maintain adequate spacing behind the bozo who
is flying his Cessna at 45 knots in ground effect.

I had a P51 in the pattern at Oshkosh with a Breezy in front of me. The
tower had me on the same downwind at co-altitude with about a 150kt overtake
and I couldn't get a word in edgewise. (Oshkosh can be a real problem if you
need a quick head's up to ATC about something and can't key the mike for the
traffic noise.
Anyway, I was caught between a rock and a hard place obviously since I
figured if I sliced up the Breezy it would really ding my prop and probably
really **** off the Breezy guy.
I had to alter my downwind drastically or over run the Breezy . I had full
flaps on the airplane, was way behind the power curve, and nibbling with my
CL max carrying about 45 inches and had to do something quick and on my own.
I could see the Breezy guy looking back over his shoulder like I was a T Rex
about to have him for lunch.
I was clear on my right side and altered enough to extend, just as the tower
broke in and asked me why I WAS extending. I told them the guy in the Breezy
was about to have a heart attack or an 11 foot 2 inch Hamilton Standard
24D50 prop up his butt if I didn't extend! :-)
Moral is that in a controlled VFR pattern that's busy, you comply, but never
blindly!!
Dudley Henriques

In article ,
"Kyle Boatright" wrote:

One of the local flight schools from a
towered field teaches B-52 style approaches in their C-172's. That makes
sense for someone who is just attempting his/her first landings, but once
the student has the landing thing figured out, the instructor(s) really,
really need to retrain their students to fly a tighter pattern.

It's much easier to teach somebody the right way the first time.

Viperdoc writes:

On the other hand, pilots that fly slower airplanes should also be aware
that they do not need to fly patterns the same size as someone in a 747. You
do not need a five mile final in a 152- it does tend to back up everyone
else in the pattern.

This is something that confuses me about patterns: Isn't the purpose
of the pattern to keep everyone moving in the same path? Clearly, if
you fly lower or higher than someone else, or inside or outside their
path, you're separated, but isn't there still a risk that you'll
collide at some point?

I always picture aircraft in a pattern following each other in a neat
line, but it sounds like it doesn't work this way in real life, and so
I'm still a bit confused on how they avoid hitting each other if they
are all flying at different altitudes and distances with legs of
different lengths.

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

john smith wrote:
Many pilots are clueless in the pattern when it comes to following
slower traffic.

That's because while they were training, they *were* the slower traffic :-)