I think I know why so many Cirrus' crash

Matt,

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 he bashed another pilot in the process for something not at all
unusual. Nothing wrong with pointing that out, IMHO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Ron Lee wrote:
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.

It might.

I won't be one of the others
because I expect inept pilots like him to be around.


I hope not. Unlike some others around here, though, I have not
convinced myself that my god-like aviation ability has made me
immortal. There are those who do think that way, and it strikes me that
their saying Cirrus pilots are arrogant is a little bit of the pot
calling the kettle black.

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

"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.

"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

For the record, I did notice (and mention) that. :-)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

AND he bashed another pilot in the process for something not at all
unusual. Nothing wrong with pointing that out, IMHO.

Clipclip,

i have seen...


That's not how valid statistics work.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Matt,

For the record, I did notice (and mention) that. :-)


I know ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)