Cirrus crash midair

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Mike Ash writes:

Such as, Cirrus pilot had a heart attack thirty seconds before, Cirrus
had an engine failure, Cirrus hit large bird whose entrails covered the
forward view, etc.

Possible, but not very probable. Why look for highly improbable explanations
when there is a very probable and plausible one (pilot error)?

Ah, there's that famous excessive snip.

You said "plausible", not "very probable". All of those scenarios are
plausible.

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

In article ,
says...

george writes:

And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose

A Cirrus isn't a sailplane. And a pilot with a blind spot needs to fly in such
a way that he makes allowances for his inability to see in that blind spot.

(The Cirrus surely has an even larger blind spot.)

So wot you're sorta saying fly...
A unununununununununununu B

instead of
A ----------------------- B

Have you not done/read any of flying training in MSFS? - I'm sure they'd
cover situational awareness and lookout ('covering/clearing airspace').
This is practiced all the time in real flying MX. It's just not
possible to cover your blind spots all the time.

To be honest, your comment is just ridiculous and stupid. Real pilots
*do* maintain a procedurally based and trained lookout.

--
Duncan.

On Feb 10, 11:11*am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article
,

*george wrote:
On Feb 9, 7:34*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
george writes:
And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose

A Cirrus isn't a sailplane. And a pilot with a blind spot needs to fly in
such
a way that he makes allowances for his inability to see in that blind spot.

http://www.standardcirrus.org/
Wow. Mixedup is wrong * * again.
Colour me unsurprised

What is it about this guy that people must jump to contradict him even
when what he says is totally reasonable?

It's completely clear in context that "A Cirrus" in this case refers to
one of the single engine aircraft built by Cirrus Design, NOT to one of
the two models of sailplane built by Schempp-Hirth. Yes, there are
sailplanes called "Cirrus", but this one was not a sailplane, just as he
says.

Very true. However as you know and as I know every aircraft has not
only the makers name but an extension that means a particular aircraft
type.
As in C150, C177.
According to what I read of the report it stated that the accident
happened on aerotow. :-(

Mixedup is not and never has been 'reasonable' ..
Nor has he ever actually flown a real aeroplane- either a sailplane or
a powerplane. He is only here because he has nowhere else to be

writes:

So read your previous statement.

The existence of a blind spot does not relieve the pilot of the need to
maintain situational awareness, including an awareness of nearby aircraft.
Under visual flight rules the obligation to see and avoid is constant. If the
pilot knows of a blind spot in his field of vision, then he must take
appropriate action to maintain his awareness of traffic within that blind
spot, such as by maneuvering the aircraft to make any such traffic visible.

See the AIM, 8-1-8 (j) (1).

george writes:

Its something real pilots know and compensate for by keeping a good
lookout.

Comes under the heading of "airmanship"

So a failure to do so, leading to a midair collision, is clearly pilot error.
QED.

george writes:

http://www.standardcirrus.org/
Wow. Mixedup is wrong again.
Colour me unsurprised

The Cirrus in the incident under discussion was a powered airplane
manufactured by Cirrus Aircraft.

Mike Ash writes:

What is it about this guy that people must jump to contradict him even
when what he says is totally reasonable?

A great many people are unable to separate their animosity or affection
towards a particular person from the objective validity of what he or she
says.

george writes:

Very true. However as you know and as I know every aircraft has not
only the makers name but an extension that means a particular aircraft
type.
As in C150, C177.
According to what I read of the report it stated that the accident
happened on aerotow.

The only time Cirrus has been mentioned in news reports is as the name of the
powered airplane that collided with the tow plane and glider. And it descended
with an aircraft parachute, something that is widely known to be a feature of
Cirrus powered aircraft.

Dave Doe writes:

Have you not done/read any of flying training in MSFS? - I'm sure they'd
cover situational awareness and lookout ('covering/clearing airspace').
This is practiced all the time in real flying MX. It's just not
possible to cover your blind spots all the time.

This pilot could have covered his blind spots better than he did, assuming
that blind spots had anything to do with it. It's still pilot error in all
probability.

What do you think caused this crash, if not pilot error?

To be honest, your comment is just ridiculous and stupid. Real pilots
*do* maintain a procedurally based and trained lookout.

They move their heads, and, if necessary to cover blind spots, they move the
airplane. Failure to do so may have a very grave effect on their situational
awareness, as this incident may have demonstrated. The failure to do so is a
pilot error.

Mike Ash writes:

You said "plausible", not "very probable". All of those scenarios are
plausible.

Only one is probable: pilot error. If you believe it is something other than
pilot error, explain why. None of the information I've seen concerning this
crash implies any cause other than pilot error.