Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cirrus SR-22 Crash In N. Arizona  
User currently offlineAirTranTUS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 14554 times:

I'm surprised this has not been picked up yet. Wednesday (10/25) a Cirrus SR-22 piloted by SCCA Pro Racing SPEED Touring Car driver Lucho DeCastro and carrying his wife and two kids cruising at 13,000 ft from the San Francisco area to Phoenix declared an emergency due to severe wing icing about 60 miles East of LAS shortly after 12PM (Noon). Contact was lost and the wreckage was found by helicopters a few hours later. It is unclear if the parachute was deployed. All four on board perished and three were found outside the airplane.

http://www.kingmandailyminer.com/mai...nID=18&ArticleID=10603&TM=81080.03
http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=237223&FS=

RIP to all.  Sad

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 14557 times:

I saw that on the FAA site and wondered about the parachute, guess I am still wondering?

http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/a...reliminary_data/media/B_1026_N.txt

M


User currently offlineFlyinryan99 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2001 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 14440 times:

From what I have heard, the chute was not deployed. They were also VFR at 13,500. No IFR flight plan was on file.

User currently offlineFSPilot747 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 4 hours ago) and read 14383 times:

Guy was VFR in IMC, at 13K+ ft?

User currently offlineAPFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 14339 times:

Quoting Flyinryan99 (Reply 2):
No IFR flight plan was on file.

Thats not what the FAA report says.


User currently offlineDc-9-10 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 584 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 14316 times:

While I feel for everyone involved I think this is going to be another case of a pilot trying to get more performance out of his airplane then is possible. The SR-22 is not approved for icing and the icing system is only for when arrive in inadvertent icing and when that happens you need to turn immediately. I have seen several pilots who think they are indestructible because of the parachute and weeping wing, and I think they are going to face a hard reality someday, lets just hope they are luckier.

Dc-9-10


User currently online4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 3011 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 14110 times:

All I have to contribute is an observation that on the PHX local TV news that had film of the crash site, the parachute was open. Now if the pilot did it or the crash itself freed it up enough for the wind to open it up is something I don't know.


Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
User currently offlineFlyinryan99 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2001 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months ago) and read 14069 times:

Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 4):
Thats not what the FAA report says.

That's strange, it was not showing up on any tracking websites. The only thing that I can think of happened is he could've picked up one in the air then. My bad. Conflicting reports he was in IMC or not...don't need to be in IMC in order to pick up icing.


User currently offlineFlyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 13988 times:

Let me remind you all that NO Cirrus is approved for flight into known icing, EVEN the 22!

If no parachute was deployed, he was a moron.

During the pre-flight briefing, he should have told all passengers how and when to operate it.

And if you enter IMC, you are taught how to engage the autopilot and do a 180.

I'm putting money on the fact that he probably never attended Cirrus training at the factory which Cirrus highly recommends.

RIP.



Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
User currently offlineAerodog From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 13955 times:

A SR22 crashed in North Carolina Friday killing two of the four on board.

Cirrus aircraft are compiling a rather lengthy list of fatals.

While most can probably be attributed to pilot error, the company is going to be facing a lot of lawsuits which take years to come to trial and the aircraft manufacturer enters the courtroom guilty and forced to prove innocence.

Condolences to the victims families.


User currently offlineTinPusher007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 13929 times:

Quoting Aerodog (Reply 19):
A SR22 crashed in North Carolina Friday killing two of the four on board.

Cirrus aircraft are compiling a rather lengthy list of fatals.

While most can probably be attributed to pilot error, the company is going to be facing a lot of lawsuits which take years to come to trial and the aircraft manufacturer enters the courtroom guilty and forced to prove innocence.

Condolences to the victims families.

I, too seem to be hearing about an awful lot of Cirrus crashes lately. I had the opportunity to fly one once and immediately fell in love with the thing. I think it's too much airplane for those that choose to fly it. It's a bit of a step up from a 172 or a warrior.



"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
User currently offlineFlyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13899 times:

Quoting TinPusher007 (Reply 20):
I think it's too much airplane for those that choose to fly it. It's a bit of a step up from a 172 or a warrior.

I'm sick and tired of people saying this. If you get proper training in it, it is not too much to handle. I am a CFI in the Cirrus SR20 and it is the wave of the future. People who train for fun should not be in a cirrus. If your goal is to be a commercial pilot, you might as well learn now how to handle a quick, glass cockpit airplane with skywatch and terrain advisories.



Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13891 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting Flyingbronco05 (Reply 21):
If your goal is to be a commercial pilot, you might as well learn now how to handle a quick, glass cockpit airplane with skywatch and terrain advisories.

 checkmark 

Indeed. Developing a scan is well and good, but folks with glass time will make a much smoother transition to modern airline avionics than those without that experience.

In the end, the Cirrus has it's pluses and minuses. Preparing future ATPs for their careers is certainly one of the pluses.



2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineTinPusher007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13527 times:

Quoting Flyingbronco05 (Reply 21):
think it's too much airplane for those that choose to fly it. It's a bit of a step up from a 172 or a warrior.


I'm sick and tired of people saying this. If you get proper training in it, it is not too much to handle. I am a CFI in the Cirrus SR20 and it is the wave of the future. People who train for fun should not be in a cirrus. If your goal is to be a commercial pilot, you might as well learn now how to handle a quick, glass cockpit airplane with skywatch and terrain advisories.

Relax! Im not saying that it's too difficult to fly...I said for those who chose to fly it. It seems alot of celebrity types buy it just for fun and are more than likely not properly trained in it and wind up killing themselves. I flew with a Cirrus instructor as well on a demo flight and it was just awesome. No other way to describe it.



"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
User currently offlineFSPilot747 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 13204 times:

Quoting Flyingbronco05 (Reply 21):

I'm sick and tired of people saying this. If you get proper training in it, it is not too much to handle. I am a CFI in the Cirrus SR20 and it is the wave of the future. People who train for fun should not be in a cirrus. If your goal is to be a commercial pilot, you might as well learn now how to handle a quick, glass cockpit airplane with skywatch and terrain advisories.

Nothing wrong with leisure pilots learning to use glass, but there is everything wrong with learning to use nothing BUT glass (for instance, the FBOs that teach private candidates in shiny new G1000 172s). Try taking an instrument pilot who trained on a G1000 or Avedyne all their flying life and having them fly an instrument approach in actual with no autopilot in a basic instrument panel. They won't make it.

Our main mechanic was laughing one day when we had a Mooney in the shop, a beautiful one at that. It had a G1000 that failed. He was laughing because of how many times he's had to work on failed glass displays in these GA airplanes.

Electrical systems fail. I've had it happen before, and I would rather have my pitot-static system feeding into analog gauges than everything in one system that can fail. That's the whole point of redundancy. You can't call it redundancy if everything feeds into the electrical system (it doesn't have a RAT either).

You can argue that sure, it does have a backup Altitude Indicator and compass, but chances are if you've been relying on a glass cockpit and autopilot, that's not going to help you get anywhere if you're in the soup with 200ft ceilings and who knows what tops.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned. I think the glass concept is great idea for the experienced pilot. It's got traffic avoidance, beautiful displays that make situational awareness a piece of cake, but it's when those systems fail that things can hit the roof fast.

Of course, you could always just pull the chute.


User currently offlineFerrypilot From New Zealand, joined Sep 2006, 897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 13190 times:

Very interesting to read all the above. ...In 2005 I ferried 10 brand new Cirrus SR20/22's from the Duluth factory across the North Atlantic via Greenland, Iceland and Scotland to the Cirrus dealer in Holland, ...which amounts to approx. 300 hours flying time on the type, ...and also means I have a lot of thoughts about the Cirrus, but at the moment I am going to give further consideration to what I might say.

User currently offlineBeechNut From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 724 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13142 times:

Reality check time. I fly and own a 4-seat Beech Sundowner. I'm already paying $2k per year for insurance on a 10,000 hour, 27 y.o. airframe. If the Cirrus continues piling up the stats, it doesn't matter who's fault it is. The damned thing will end up uninsurable, or insurable, but at a price that will start to make the tired old Cessna and Piper designs seem awfully attractive again.

I realize that to someone who can afford to buy a brand-new Cirrus, the insurance is probably pocket change, but I know someone with a relatively late-model ('90s vintage) A36 Bo and even though he's wealthy, he's starting to find that the near $10k a year insurance bill bites.

The situation with the Cirrus, though a different cause, is starting to resemble the situation with the V-tail Bonanzas. Took some time for Beech to finally admit that the V-tail needed strengthening through an AD. Initially, Beech was saying that the plane was too slick and inexperienced pilots were getting caught in loss of control situations when they got in over their heads, with a rapid airspeed buildup beyond redline and then they overstressed the airframe trying to pull out.

Turns out the tail WAS too weak after all.

The Cirrus is starting to sound an awful lot like V-tail déjà-vu.

Beech


User currently offlineNewagebird From Australia, joined Sep 2005, 64 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12987 times:

I dont think 13000 ft is where you want to be without anti-ice systems. De-icing systems are totally different and if he didnt turn them on before hitting the freezing level (which is in the damn forecast!) then its not hard to see why his wings froze. As mentioned before the system isn't approved for flight in icing conditions, just a precautionary should you enter it. I've heard of cessnas going down after being near a freezing level of 7500ft.
Not only does it change lift characteristics but it messes up the stall characteristics making the A/C stall earlier. I really hate it when its pilot error.

rgds newagebird


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12926 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 16):
The Cirrus feels very numb to me...almost as though they went too far in isolating the pilot from the outside environment. The controls, in my opinion, demonstrate a considerable lack of feel and feedback when compared to more 'traditional' aircraft.

I've never flown a Cirrus myself, but Aviation Consumer said the following about the SR20:

"The SR20 handles quite well; it’s among the nicest flying airplanes we have ever experienced, on par with the Cessna 208 Caravan or T303 Crusader, two Dave Ellis designs. There’s no dead spot in roll or pitch and stick forces are well harmonized with linear elevator force. Bonanza pilots will be right at home."

Quoting TinPusher007 (Reply 20):
I think it's too much airplane for those that choose to fly it.

Bingo. It's a high performance aircraft, even though it is fixed gear.


User currently offlineFerrypilot From New Zealand, joined Sep 2006, 897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12806 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 28):
The SR20 handles quite well; it’s among the nicest flying airplanes we have ever experienced, on par with the Cessna 208 Caravan or T303 Crusader, two Dave Ellis designs. There’s no dead spot in roll or pitch and stick forces are well harmonized with linear elevator force. Bonanza pilots will be right at home."

...I have flown all 3 of those planes and in my opinion control feel in either the Cirrus SR20 or 22 does not bear any resemblance at all to control feel in the 208 Caravan or 303 Crusader.


User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4489 posts, RR: 21
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12480 times:

Quoting Dc-9-10 (Reply 5):
While I feel for everyone involved I think this is going to be another case of a pilot trying to get more performance out of his airplane then is possible. The SR-22 is not approved for icing and the icing system is only for when arrive in inadvertent icing and when that happens you need to turn immediately. I have seen several pilots who think they are indestructible because of the parachute and weeping wing, and I think they are going to face a hard reality someday, lets just hope they are luckier.

 checkmark  Right on, brother.

IMHO, the only people that should really be flying Cirruses are professional flight training schools (for people that want to fly for a living) and 135 organizations like SATSair. It's not the airplane for your typical weekend warrior, by any means. And more money does not necessarily equal more sense. This airplane is quickly replacing the Bonanza for the reputation of "doctor-killer."

Quoting Flyinryan99 (Reply 15):
That's strange, it was not showing up on any tracking websites. The only thing that I can think of happened is he could've picked up one in the air then. My bad. Conflicting reports he was in IMC or not...don't need to be in IMC in order to pick up icing.

Right. My experience with the tracking websites and my own flying is that air-filed flight plans don't show up.

If he was really at 13,500 feet in VMC then there must have been some kind of precipitation to cause him to ice up, as you know, obviously, but most of our resident student pilot/observers may not. Either way, precip that high, at this time of year, with OATs so marginal, should set off warning flags as being a BAD THING.

I am amazed how many people I come across in the Cirrus that have been so complacent with the new technology. I've had one guy actually laugh at me once for "failing" the ND and saying "that won't ever happen, it's a Cirrus!" And all this NEXRAD business, too...I've flown through prenty of precip that hasn't been displayed on the screen, due to the data being +5 minutes old and, quite simply, that ground-based WSR-88D radar wasn't really designed to provide precipitation data for airplanes at altitude.

If I designed training programs, I'd start people out in the old steam-gauged 172 and TRANSITION them to glass cockpit as an "extra" once their (mechanical) needle/ball flying got good.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineTurnit56N From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12387 times:

It's a fantastic airplane, and gives you a completely different perspective on light GA flying. It is designed to make you feel comfortable, and to handle smoothly. It's so comfortable and handles so smooth that you forget how much airplane it really is....which I believe is the exact reason many people get into trouble with them.

I do not think it is an aircraft for inexperienced pilots or for initial training.

OT: By the way, not all commercial airliners have glass panels, which makes me wary of the "if you want to be a commercial pilot, learn on glass" theory. I know from personal experience that it takes very little time to transition from round dials to glass. It takes a bit longer to develop a T-scan to the point where it is second nature. Imagine a student that does their initial, instrument, commercial, instructing, ATP and regional flying in a glass cockpit. Then one happy day they get hired into CO and plop down in the right seat of a Continental 737-300.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marcus Anderholm


Uh-oh.


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12171 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting Turnit56N (Reply 31):
I do not think it is an aircraft for inexperienced pilots or for initial training.

I don't think anyone here has claimed otherwise. I agree with JBird 100%...it's ideal to train on round gauges during one's primary, and then transition to glass for advanced training. This builds a solid foundation of experience and skill, while adding valuable exposure to advanced equipment.

Quoting Turnit56N (Reply 31):
OT: By the way, not all commercial airliners have glass panels, which makes me wary of the "if you want to be a commercial pilot, learn on glass" theory.

While it's certainly true that not all commercial airliners (nor corporate jets, and certainly not freighters) are glass, glass is only becoming more and more prevalent. Steam cockpits, on the other hand, are fast becoming the exception, rather than the norm.

Is it important to learn and become proficient on round gauges? Absolutely. Is it important to also learn and become proficient on glass? If one's goal is to fly corporate jets and/or transport-category aircraft, absolutely.

Quoting Turnit56N (Reply 31):
I know from personal experience that it takes very little time to transition from round dials to glass.

But in the modern airline training environment, where training time is money, syllabi is being concentrated into an ever shorter period of time. Sure, the transition to glass may be relatively painless for some people, but it's just one more thing to tack on to an already saturated syllabus.

The more training topics with which one can become familiarized before the entire training/IOE process, the better. Ideally, the entire process is simply review!  Smile

Quoting Turnit56N (Reply 31):
Imagine a student that does their initial, instrument, commercial, instructing, ATP and regional flying in a glass cockpit. Then one happy day they get hired into CO and plop down in the right seat of a Continental 737-300.

Again.....unless I missed a post above, I don't think anyone here is advocating flight training based solely on glass. I agree that such a program would be foolish, and I think there are clear advantages to including exposure to both environments.  yes 



2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12125 times:

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 30):
If he was really at 13,500 feet in VMC then there must have been some kind of precipitation to cause him to ice up, as you know, obviously, but most of our resident student pilot/observers may not. Either way, precip that high, at this time of year, with OATs so marginal, should set off warning flags as being a BAD THING.

I was working that Wednesday and had flights into LAS, PHX, and ABQ from LAX and SNA, and from what I recall there were scattered-to-broken coverage thunderstorms and rainshowers roughly along a IGM to INW line and maybe a little south of there. I can't recall what the exact freezing levels were, but I do recall that FLG was reporting -TSSN (Thunder and light snow) at one point.

Pretty sad that a crash has to take out an entire family...  Sad


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11990 times:

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 30):
IMHO, the only people that should really be flying Cirruses are professional flight training schools (for people that want to fly for a living) and 135 organizations like SATSair. It's not the airplane for your typical weekend warrior, by any means.

Yes and no- unfortunately money is allowing rich folks to buy the shiney new plane and kill themselves with their false sense of security, but those who are properly trained in the plane are no more dangerous in it as they'd be in a new 172SP. Most aircraft salesmen are more interested in getting the plane out the door and paid for than they are with ensuring proper training is given. Give it some time and I'm sure there'll be more incidents like this unfortunately- had to have something to replace the Beech.

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 30):
If I designed training programs, I'd start people out in the old steam-gauged 172 and TRANSITION them to glass cockpit as an "extra" once their (mechanical) needle/ball flying got good.

I'll throw you that bone- I've met, on more than one occasion, a Cirrus pilot who almost looked lost in a 172- but could navigate through the G1000 like it was a Maxim- that's the accident waiting to happen. Do it like the military does, (or rather, did) make you start out on the old steam equipment before getting in the fancier stuff.

Overall, it's an extremely capable aircraft and I'm happy I spent the money on a checkout in it, hopefully people can remember how far their limits go- kind of like drinking in that regard, know when to say when.

DeltaGuy


25 Post contains images 2H4 : I wonder how often this has been said over the years, regarding things like attitude indicators, nav instruments, tricycle gear, wx radar, etc.... 2H
26 AndrewUber : Looks like the name "Doctor Killer" might need to be passed from Bonanza to Cirrus. They are slippery airplanes, and when low time pilots find themsel
27 Post contains images JBirdAV8r : Ah, DG, we meet again! Well, yeah, but I suppose that begs the question of what qualifies as "proper training." I agree that going through Cirrus sta
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Cirrus SR-22 Crashes In Minnesota - 3 Dead posted Tue Dec 13 2005 20:19:17 by KaiGywer
Helicopter Crash Kills 7 In Arizona posted Mon Sep 22 2003 01:01:31 by B727
Breaking News : 22 Dead In Venezuela Air Crash posted Fri Jan 26 2001 02:00:57 by Jiml1126
Perimeter Airlines Crash In Norway House... posted Thu Nov 9 2006 07:30:02 by Virgin747
TU-134 Crash In June 2006 At SIP (Simferopol) posted Sat Nov 4 2006 23:52:16 by MHG
Beech Duchess Crash In Florida posted Thu Nov 2 2006 05:01:59 by United757
9V-SPK Tropical Megatop Crash In 01' Fatalities? posted Mon Oct 30 2006 02:28:44 by TrijetFan1
5 Killed In Cheyenne Crash In Prescott, AZ posted Thu Oct 19 2006 03:41:39 by FlyUSCG
Plane Crash In Moscow posted Thu Oct 12 2006 12:06:48 by Tom3
Cessna 401 Crash In Kentucky posted Mon Aug 28 2006 23:32:33 by Mika