I think I know why so many Cirrus' crash

"Ron Lee" wrote

It does teach me something. That Cirrus pilots can be idiots.

In my experience the aircraft does not make the idiot.

...BRS deployments for engaging in flight that is stupid.

Seems like a rush to judgement with few facts.

What
the Cirrus pilot did was unacceptable and that sort of behavior may
eventually get him and others killed.

Maybe it was unacceptable, but it is also quite common especially at
airports with corporate and commercial traffic. Realizing this, and
planning and being prepared for it is what will keep you and those you share
the skies with alive.

BDS

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
According to 91.113b, you can cut ahead of an aircraft that has right of
way
provided that you can remain "well clear". So it's not a violation of the
rules if you cut in front of a landing aircraft that's on a long enough
final.

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
ups.com...
Fine, then. I guess you don't have to see and avoid at an uncontrolled
field, is that what [you] are saying?

Um, no. Seeing and avoiding is (primarily) how you determine whether you can
cut in front of a landing aircraft yet remain well clear, thus complying
with the right-of-way rules.

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.

That's one reason you have to scan visually regardless of what the radio
report says. The only time you should trust the radio report more than your
visual scan is if you *don't* see the landing aircraft nearby but it reports
that it *is* so close that you should be able to see it.

--Gary

cjcampbell wrote:


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.

Well clear means you don't have to make any adjustments for the fact
that now there is somebody in front of you. His actual mileage from the
runway was irrelavant.



Now, when someone says that they are on a 4 mile final, how often have
you seen where they were actually 4 miles out?

The actual distance doesn't matter. If I can see them and judge that I
can turn in front without causing them to alter their flightpath then I
will. If I can't see them because they're so far out on final I'm
turning base anyways.


But telling him that he does not have to see and
avoid at an uncontrolled field

Nobody said that.

Originally Posted by Ron Lee

Thus my assessment is that Cirrus pilots have too much money and
inadequate pilot skills/common sense. Other fatal crashes just add to
this perception.

Ron Lee

i'd say pretty much the same thing but in a different way - i have seen many well-off pilots who (implicitly) think that having a glass cockpit with the latest of everything is almost equivalent to a force field that will protect them against anything - and if it doesn't, the BRS will. the toys and gadgets distract the pilot from the real task at hand - which is to fly well within the performance envelope. the fatal accident record of the cirrus seems to support that. IIRC, its fatal crash rate is higher than that of the rest of the GA fleet (someone correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure i've read this in a number of publications) . i also seem to remember that insuring a cirrus is limited to one (or very few companies) and carries a very high rate because of these incidents.

unfortunately, any aircraft, when pointed at a hard object will eventually hurt its occupants. gathering ice, exploring the unusual attitude part of the flight envelope, trying to fly VFR in solid clouds (and whatever other stupid pilot trick) will often result in premature landings and rapid decelerations. the PIC is the only individual with the burden of sometimes difficult decisions - no amount of electronics or chute can discharge him from that responsibility.

that fact seems to get forgotten when the plane is sold as a "safest" and "foolproof" plane. most if not all the plane's mag reviews seem to emphasize how failures are very unlikely or quasi-impossible. however, the single most vulnerable and least reliable aircraft system, is the chair-joystick interface and is rarely adressed. (the pilot, whose fundamental design has not changed significantly over the last 10,000 years).

some recent cirrus accidents make the point - consider the recent one where the pilot with low hours and a brand new plane took off with his family, flew into IMC and perished. consider the pilot who flew over the cascades, seems to have taken on severe icing, and tried to deploy his chute which didn't function properly. or another pilot who was seen doing slow steep turns and stalls at low altitude and finally got the plane to spin into the ground. ... and i could bore you with many more examples. unfortunately, this type of accident seems to be too frequent in this airframe.

IMO, a serious commitment to airmanship, pilotage, and remaining well away from the ragged bleeding edges of the performance envelope is the only way to significantly improve the safety of flying. the truly weak link in flying an airplane is the payload in the front left seat.

"my skills as a pilot have taken years to develop and improve very slowly with much hard work, while my ability to do stupid things has remained totally intact and has not required any training"

frank

"clipclip" .

i'd say pretty much the same thing but in a different way - i have seen
many well-off pilots who (implicitly) think that having a glass cockpit
with the latest of everything is almost equivalent to a force field
that will protect them against anything - and if it doesn't, the BRS
will.


We keep hearing about these guys but they don't ever seem to say this
anywhere we can verify it. Can you?

the toys and gadgets distract the pilot from the real task at
hand - which is to fly well within the performance envelope. the fatal
accident record of the cirrus seems to support that. IIRC, its fatal
crash rate is higher than that of the rest of the GA fleet (someone
correct me if i'm wrong

No. Your assertion. You back it up.

i also seem to remember that insuring a cirrus is
limited to one (or very few companies) and carries a very high rate
because of these incidents.

Evidence. That's not my experience. Except in Canada. But that has
nothing to do with the accident rate.

that fact seems to get forgotten when the plane is sold as a "safest"
and "foolproof" plane.

Not my experience. And I've been through the sales pitch. Have you? How
do you know how they sell it?

most if not all the plane's mag reviews seem to
emphasize how failures are very unlikely or quasi-impossible.

What type of "failures"? There's rather a lot, you know.
however,

some recent cirrus accidents make the point - consider the recent one
where the pilot with low hours and a brand new plane took off with his
family, flew into IMC and perished. consider the pilot who flew over
the cascades, seems to have taken on severe icing, and tried to deploy
his chute which didn't function properly. or another pilot who was seen
doing slow steep turns and stalls at low altitude and finally got the
plane to spin into the ground. ... and i could bore you with many more
examples. unfortunately, this type of accident seems to be too frequent
in this airframe.

Again, you got some comparitive cites?

IMO, a serious commitment to airmanship, pilotage, and remaining well
away from the ragged bleeding edges of the performance envelope is the
only way to significantly improve the safety of flying. the truly weak
link in flying an airplane is the payload in the front left seat.

I don't think you'll find anyone who doubts that here.

m

Clipclip,

i have seen...


That's not how valid statistics work.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I'm not taking the time to read the many responses to your inflammatory post. I
will cut to the chase and declare that you're an idiot.. Or alternatively,
merely insanely jealous of those folks that are fortunate enough to be able to
fly Cirrus aircraft.

OK, now that I've set your underwear on fire, please explain how you can assert
that because you had a run-in with a single pilot that happened to be flying a
Cirrus, that Cirri are prone to crashing and/or generally bad behavior. Had he
been flying a 172 or a PA28 or a Katana or a Learjet or Pilatus, would you've
posted that all pilots of that type are crash-prone? I think not.

There is an interesting trend I'm seeing, that at least some pilots assume that
anyone flying a Cirrus must be rich and under-trained. Trust me, there are rich
folks flying ALL types of aircraft, and some of them are as competent as you or
me - or more - and some are less-so. It has nothing to do with the aircraft
type.

Disclaimer: I have a few SR20 hours, and I like the aircraft - in fact I think
it's one of the best things to happen to GA in many years. I like 172SPs almost
as much. I like Pilatus PC12s much more 8^) . But your post just irks the ****
out of me. It's a classic case of stereotyping due to ignorance, or envy,
or... whatever you're feeling.

Get over that incident and keep an eye out for the next idiot making a
straight-in approach, 15 miles out (perhaps for a practice instrument
approach?), for a very busy runway. He just might be flying your favorite
airplane.

Dave Blevins



On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:16:05 GMT, (Ron Lee) wrote:

Coming back from KCOS to 00V today several aircraft were in the
pattern for runway 33 and some people wanted runway 15 since the winds
were at the changeover point. With one or two at the runup area for
runway 15 I just went east until the fiasco was sorted out (I made
several position reports since people were all over).

Once that happened I announced my intentions (enter left downwind for
15) about 7-8 miles out and not long after that a Cirrus announced he
was 10 miles out. When I was on left downwind the Cirrus pilot
broadcast that he was on about 4 mile base for 15. I "assumed" he
meant downwind. Then when I was about to turn base he called out four
mile FINAL for 15. I saw a plane in that area and turned base
(calling it out by radio of course)

He asked if I was cutting in front of him and I stated "Looks like
it."

Soon thereafter I decided that I was too fast so went around then when
on downwind again stated that his (Cirrus "pilot") pattern entry was
bad. His response was "I called it out." I told him that it was not
good when other planes are using a standard pattern. Had he been the
only one around I would not have cared.

Thus my assessment is that Cirrus pilots have too much money and
inadequate pilot skills/common sense. Other fatal crashes just add to
this perception.

Ron Lee