Cirrus crash midair

Loek writes:

How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic accident??
(low time and failure to give right of way) Ah, you both were there, right?

It's a simple process of elimination. VFR conditions, both pilots required to
see and avoid, tow plane has the right of way. The Cirrus aircraft failed to
see and avoid and failed to yield right of way. There aren't too many other
possibilities. It's unlikely to be a mechanical failure or weather.

And as I've said, this has happened before, also with a Cirrus. Quite an eerie
coincidence.

You may have read something I don't know about yet, but until you have
proven facts on paper there is no way you can give the Cirrus pilot the
blame / fault for this.

Sure you can. Unless you can think of some other possible explanation?

MX,

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment. (I don't know
the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown reason.
Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of them.

The cases I had never were that easy as it looked. There was always
something "funny" part of the pyramid.

Got to go now. I'll be back tomorrow evening!

Cheers,

Loek

"Mxsmanic" schreef in bericht
...
Loek writes:

How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic
accident??
(low time and failure to give right of way) Ah, you both were there,
right?

It's a simple process of elimination. VFR conditions, both pilots required
to
see and avoid, tow plane has the right of way. The Cirrus aircraft failed
to
see and avoid and failed to yield right of way. There aren't too many
other
possibilities. It's unlikely to be a mechanical failure or weather.

And as I've said, this has happened before, also with a Cirrus. Quite an
eerie
coincidence.

You may have read something I don't know about yet, but until you have
proven facts on paper there is no way you can give the Cirrus pilot the
blame / fault for this.

Sure you can. Unless you can think of some other possible explanation?

Loek writes:

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment. (I don't know
the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown reason.
Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of them.

True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other than
simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics, and in
this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.

Even if something obstructed the pilot's view momentarily or his attention was
drawn elsewhere, it's still his fault, as he should have sufficient
situational awareness to know of the other aircraft without having to depend
on a fraction of a second of perception. What about radio calls? What about
traffic patterns? There are multiple ways in which he should have become aware
of the other aircraft.

Unless the surviving pilot and passengers from the glider can shed some
insight into this accident, we may never know what actually happened, but I
don't think it's unreasonable to assume pilot error until proven otherwise.

There's also the eerie coincidence of there being at least one other accident
with a Cirrus that happened pretty much exactly the same way, except that
there were survivors.

On Feb 9, 6:55*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other than
simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics, and in
this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.

This coming from some-one who has never flown an aircraft in real
time.
Remember that mixedup's only claim to flying is playing flying
simulator games.
And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Loek writes:

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment. (I don't know
the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown reason.
Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of them.

True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other than
simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics, and in
this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.

It's trivial to imagine many other plausible explanations. The others
are not LIKELY, but there are tons of scenarios which are plausible.

There's also the eerie coincidence of there being at least one other accident
with a Cirrus that happened pretty much exactly the same way, except that
there were survivors.

You have awfully low standards for eerieness. Two accidents happening
the same way that just happened to involve the same type of aircraft is
not eerie, it's just happenstance.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Dear Mx,

I just cannot agree with you. You're reasoning is a little too easy and I
get the impression it only serves the purpose of finger pointing an already
very dead person. (At least I think he is?) His family will be quite happy
with you. Again: you and I were not there so we can not and do not know what
happened exactly. Wild guesses are of no use at all but a healthy discussion
about possible causes is something different and even useful in a group like
this. Leave it to the very experienced and evenly qualified NTSB to find the
root cause of this tragic accident so we all can learn from it. And then we
can take measures to prevent an accident like this from happening again in
the future.

Cheers,

Loek

"Mxsmanic" schreef in bericht
...
Loek writes:

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment. (I don't
know
the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown
reason.
Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of them.

True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other than
simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics,
and in
this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.

Even if something obstructed the pilot's view momentarily or his attention
was
drawn elsewhere, it's still his fault, as he should have sufficient
situational awareness to know of the other aircraft without having to
depend
on a fraction of a second of perception. What about radio calls? What
about
traffic patterns? There are multiple ways in which he should have become
aware
of the other aircraft.

Unless the surviving pilot and passengers from the glider can shed some
insight into this accident, we may never know what actually happened, but
I
don't think it's unreasonable to assume pilot error until proven
otherwise.

There's also the eerie coincidence of there being at least one other
accident
with a Cirrus that happened pretty much exactly the same way, except that
there were survivors.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
..

Cirrus is the "fork-tailed doctor killer" of our era. The old V-tailed
Bonanzas tended to attract low-time, low-competence, high-income pilots,
and
Cirrus aircraft are doing the same thing. I don't know if Beechcraft ever
deliberately tried to target that market as Cirrus is doing, though.

I remember that back in the mid 60s, Flying magazine had
an article on doctor involved accidents. At that time doctors,
as a group, were involved in about a third of all fatals in
private GA aircraft. A lot of these doctors were experienced
pilots, and the majority their accidents involved weather.

The conclusion as to why this was happening came down to
one word... arrogance. Being in the business of saving lives
these individuals felt that they could handle any situation.
Oh, and I seem to remember that Bonanzas were involved
in some of the incidents.

On Feb 7, 8:03*pm, "Ian D" wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

...
.



Cirrus is the "fork-tailed doctor killer" of our era. The old V-tailed
Bonanzas tended to attract low-time, low-competence, high-income pilots,
and
Cirrus aircraft are doing the same thing. I don't know if Beechcraft ever
deliberately tried to target that market as Cirrus is doing, though.

I remember that back in the mid 60s, Flying magazine had
an article on doctor involved accidents. *At that time doctors,
as a group, were involved in about a third of all fatals in
private GA aircraft. *A lot of these doctors were experienced
pilots, and the majority their accidents involved weather.

The conclusion as to why this was happening came down to
one word... arrogance. *Being in the business of saving lives
these individuals felt that they could handle any situation.
Oh, and I seem to remember that Bonanzas were involved
in some of the incidents.

This is mostly true. I had many doctors and lawyers as students during
the Bonanza accident period.
In many there was indeed an arrogance, and coupled with their natural
desire to achieve a short time line on anything taught to them, many
had retention issues.
The real killer in the Bonanza craze wasn't arrogance per se but a
general lack of proper training in handing an airplane with a VERY
clean wing in instrument conditions. Many of the Bonanza crashes were
the result of pilots getting the aircraft into weather they couldn't
handle. The Bo, being extremely clean, was exceptionally capable of
getting nose low in turns. Many of the fatals involved pilots applying
back pressure when sensing a nose low condition instead of swallowing
the bank FIRST or SIMULTANEOUSLY, thus swallowing the bank before
applying a positive pitch input.
This VERY BASIC ERROR in a nose low condition just served to increase
the nose low condition. It didn't take the Bo long at all to reach Vne
and beyond. At that point many Bo's lost wings to the high g loads
that became available with the greatly increased airspeed.
The Bonanza was and is a fine airplane, but like any airplane,
especially with a slippery wing, on instruments you need to be VERY
careful when recovering from a nose low condition. Arrogance and lack
of basics in a Bonanza nose low on the clocks was a killer equation!
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news:903eb1bf-9d81-4282-8979-
...

This is mostly true. I had many doctors and lawyers as students during
the Bonanza accident period.
In many there was indeed an arrogance, and coupled with their natural
desire to achieve a short time line on anything taught to them, many
had retention issues.
The real killer in the Bonanza craze wasn't arrogance per se but a
general lack of proper training in handing an airplane with a VERY
clean wing in instrument conditions. Many of the Bonanza crashes were
the result of pilots getting the aircraft into weather they couldn't
handle. The Bo, being extremely clean, was exceptionally capable of
getting nose low in turns. Many of the fatals involved pilots applying
back pressure when sensing a nose low condition instead of swallowing
the bank FIRST or SIMULTANEOUSLY, thus swallowing the bank before
applying a positive pitch input.
This VERY BASIC ERROR in a nose low condition just served to increase
the nose low condition. It didn't take the Bo long at all to reach Vne
and beyond. At that point many Bo's lost wings to the high g loads
that became available with the greatly increased airspeed.
The Bonanza was and is a fine airplane, but like any airplane,
especially with a slippery wing, on instruments you need to be VERY
careful when recovering from a nose low condition. Arrogance and lack
of basics in a Bonanza nose low on the clocks was a killer equation!
Dudley Henriques

I wonder if the quickest, safest and least costly solution to a similar
problem might be a couple of hours of glider instruction--and a glider of
medium performance or greater.

Admittedly, this is advocacy above my own experience; but it is the first
place (other than a true-motion sim) that I would look for my own use. And
besides, that glider intro flight was a lot of fun!

Peter

On Feb 7, 9:26*pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news:903eb1bf-9d81-4282-8979-
...

This is mostly true. I had many doctors and lawyers as students during
the Bonanza accident period.
In many there was indeed an arrogance, and coupled with their natural
desire to achieve a short time line on anything taught to them, many
had retention issues.
The real killer in the Bonanza craze wasn't arrogance per se but a
general lack of proper training in handing an airplane with a VERY
clean wing in instrument conditions. Many of the Bonanza crashes were
the result of pilots getting the aircraft into weather they couldn't
handle. The Bo, being extremely clean, was exceptionally capable of
getting nose low in turns. Many of the fatals involved pilots applying
back pressure when sensing a nose low condition instead of swallowing
the bank FIRST or SIMULTANEOUSLY, thus swallowing the bank before
applying a positive pitch input.
This VERY BASIC ERROR in a nose low condition just served to increase
the nose low condition. It didn't take the Bo long at all to reach Vne
and beyond. At that point many Bo's lost wings to the high g loads
that became available with the greatly increased airspeed.
The Bonanza was and is a fine airplane, but like any airplane,
especially with a slippery wing, on instruments you need to be VERY
careful when recovering from a nose low condition. Arrogance and lack
of basics in a Bonanza nose low on the clocks was a killer equation!
Dudley Henriques

I wonder if the quickest, safest and least costly solution to a similar
problem might be a couple of hours of glider instruction--and a glider of
medium performance or greater.

Admittedly, this is advocacy above my own experience; but it is the first
place (other than a true-motion sim) that I would look for my own use. *And
besides, that glider intro flight was a lot of fun!

Peter

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news:903eb1bf-9d81-4282-8979-
...

This is mostly true. I had many doctors and lawyers as students during
the Bonanza accident period.
In many there was indeed an arrogance, and coupled with their natural
desire to achieve a short time line on anything taught to them, many
had retention issues.
The real killer in the Bonanza craze wasn't arrogance per se but a
general lack of proper training in handing an airplane with a VERY
clean wing in instrument conditions. Many of the Bonanza crashes were
the result of pilots getting the aircraft into weather they couldn't
handle. The Bo, being extremely clean, was exceptionally capable of
getting nose low in turns. Many of the fatals involved pilots applying
back pressure when sensing a nose low condition instead of swallowing
the bank FIRST or SIMULTANEOUSLY, thus swallowing the bank before
applying a positive pitch input.
This VERY BASIC ERROR in a nose low condition just served to increase
the nose low condition. It didn't take the Bo long at all to reach Vne
and beyond. At that point many Bo's lost wings to the high g loads
that became available with the greatly increased airspeed.
The Bonanza was and is a fine airplane, but like any airplane,
especially with a slippery wing, on instruments you need to be VERY
careful when recovering from a nose low condition. Arrogance and lack
of basics in a Bonanza nose low on the clocks was a killer equation!
Dudley Henriques

I wonder if the quickest, safest and least costly solution to a similar
problem might be a couple of hours of glider instruction--and a glider of
medium performance or greater.

Admittedly, this is advocacy above my own experience; but it is the first
place (other than a true-motion sim) that I would look for my own use. And
besides, that glider intro flight was a lot of fun!

Peter

I've always advocated glider instruction as a positive factor for any
pilot in a total training regimen. There is no doubt that glider
training can contribute to a better overall powered pilot flying a
powered aircraft. Along the same line of reasoning, aerobatics is of
immeasurable benefit in increasing basic skill sets to higher levels.
The bottom line in any training regimen involves not only the material
covered but how the time is spent by both the instructor and the
student as they interface together to form the teacher/student
equation.
If I had to pinpoint a single attribute to be the most important a
pilot could posses exiting a training program it would be the
acquirement of a sound sense of professional judgment coupled with
good basic flying skills.
In many of the Bonanza crashes, this factor unfortunately didn't seem
to be present.
DH