Another SR22 Crash

vegas005 · Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:29 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/26...-area-plane-crash/?test=latestnews

Yet, with all the advantages that Cirrus planes should have, the fatal accident rates so far have not been better than average. Sad stuff.

Dornier328Jet · Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:32 pm

I fly the Cirrus fairly regularly as a trainer. Speaking from experience, I'd honestly say that the CAPS system, though it is ultimately designed as the ultimate fail-safe, actually encourages some pilots to be careless. Why have perfect airmanship when, if something dangerous happens, you just pull the chute and float safely to the ground? I'm just playing the devi'ls advocate, of course, but I do feel the aforementioned is true. Just my 2 cents.

United787 · Sun Nov 27, 2011 5:48 pm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel...sh-pictures,0,2829847.photogallery

One of the photos shows the parachute open...does it look like it was activated?

RIP to the four victims

N1120A · Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:22 pm

Quoting vegas005 (Thread starter):
Yet, with all the advantages that Cirrus planes should have, the fatal accident rates so far have not been better than average. Sad stuff.

The problem is that you get way too many inexperienced pilots jumping into these, without really learning the aircraft.

MD-90 · Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:53 pm

Quoting vegas005 (Thread starter):
Yet, with all the advantages that Cirrus planes should have, the fatal accident rates so far have not been better than average. Sad stuff.

Look at the record of the Diamond DA40 compared to the SR-20/22. It is absolutely stellar in comparison. I think the difference is the more forgiving wing, the more natural feeling control stick (vs the artificial feel of the side yoke), and the lower stall speed.

26point2 · Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:20 pm

According to the story the weather was overcast and raining and the flight was of the VFR variety. Historically a very common fatal accident in any type is "loss of control due to VFR flight into IFR conditions". Not saying this is what happened but odds are high.

Beeski · Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:23 pm

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 4):
Look at the record of the Diamond DA40 compared to the SR-20/22. It is absolutely stellar in comparison. I think the difference is the more forgiving wing, the more natural feeling control stick (vs the artificial feel of the side yoke), and the lower stall speed.

I learned to fly in a DA40 and have around 230 hours in it, and 20 more in 172's, I recently did some IFR training in a Redbird simulator with an SR-22 control stick. It was extremely un-natural feeling. I had to change the Redbird to a C-172 with a standard yoke to have any comfort level. So I will support what you are saying about side yoke vs. stick vs. yoke, if you are not used to it.

[Edited 2011-11-27 12:07:53]

ghifty · Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:54 pm

Sad news, sorry to hear this.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 4):
and the lower stall speed.

That's likely.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 4):
the more natural feeling control stick (vs the artificial feel of the side yoke)

Isn't that subjective? I mean.. once you get settled into the SR20/22 it should feel as natural as a DA40, right? Just a matter of time..

planemaker · Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:06 pm

Quoting ghifty (Reply 7):
Isn't that subjective?

I guess that Airbus, many fighter pilots (e.g. F16), etc., etc., just have to put up with the "extremely un-natural feeling"side yoke.

bayareapilot · Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:41 pm

Quoting planemaker (Reply 8):
I guess that Airbus, many fighter pilots (e.g. F16), etc., etc., just have to put up with the "extremely un-natural feeling"side yoke.

Those are fly-by-wire planes where the side stick is basically a joystick generating electronic input for the FBW computer.

The SR22 is not FBW. The side yoke on the SR22 is more or less the same as traditional yoke with most of the yoke chopped off.

Completely different ergonomics.

a380900 · Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:15 pm

I've flown C172, cherokee, mooney, socata, cirrus and some other less relevant things. The cirrus seemed average to me in terms of handling.

Interesting that the DA40 would have a better record. I'm not sure the others are comparable. you don't do the same type of flight on average in a c172 than you do with a cirrus for instance.

planemaker · Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:34 pm

[quote=bayareapilot,reply=9[/quote]

Yes, some obvious difference mainly in the pitch input, however there is force feed back on many FBW side sticks but it isn't "completely different ergonomics".

The point being made is that the "more natural feeling control stick (vs the artificial feel of the side yoke)" and the side yoke's "extremely un-natural feeling is purely subjective. That is all. If fact, the leap from a Cessna's "conventional" flight control to a FBW side stick is more of an "ergonomic" leap than the leap to the Cirrus flight control.

eclipseflight7 · Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:00 am

While the Cirrus's sidestick may be uncomfortable to use (I hated manually flying cross-country), it isn't so awkward to use as to create a crash.

A much more palpable explanation is the CAPS system. I think it gives a false sense of security, and although I'm sure its a helpful aid and has probably saved lives through its use, it's also the ultimate cop-out tool in the event of uncomfortable flying moments.

trnswrld · Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:02 am

For what its worth I live in the Chicago area and yesterdays weather was NASTY. Im a instrument rated pilot and an air traffic controller in Chicago and I certainly would have NOT been flying VFR yesterday. Take it for what its worth because I know no details whatsoever about the crash, im simply stating that yesterdays weather was not pretty. Hell, my drive to work was a pain in the ass due to winds, visibility, and rain, I couldnt imagine trying to fly in it...VFR or IFR for that matter. RIP to those involved. Very sad.

MD-90 · Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:01 am

Quoting ghifty (Reply 7):
Isn't that subjective? I mean.. once you get settled into the SR20/22 it should feel as natural as a DA40, right? Just a matter of time..

The centering springs, which are designed to reduce the pressure of moving the yoke with only one hand, apparently lead to lessened feedback in unusual flight conditions (on the verge of stall, high AOA, etc). The high performance wing which is optimized for fast cruise also plays a role when compared to airplanes like the 182, Arrow, or a Mooney.

I've never flown a Cirrus so take what I say with a grain of salt, but that's what I've gathered from reading about the aircraft over the years in Flying and AOPA Pilot.

Quoting a380900 (Reply 10):
Interesting that the DA40 would have a better record. I'm not sure the others are comparable. you don't do the same type of flight on average in a c172 than you do with a cirrus for instance.

I don't have access to it anymore but I believe Aviation Consumer had a report that stated that the DA40 was the safest single engine piston aircraft in the world. It had the lowest fatality rate and (so far) has never had a crash caused by structural failure. The second safest is the venerable Cessna 172.

797 · Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:30 am

Quoting United787 (Reply 2):
One of the photos shows the parachute open...does it look like it was activated?

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 5):
According to the story the weather was overcast and raining and the flight was of the VFR variety.

Why blame the Parachute? The weather was low VFR with four people on-board an engine-failed Cirrus... those ingredients do mix up to a fatal crash IMHO.

At these conditions, putting aside the low visibility, the aircraft itself looses plenty of its gliding capabilities. Even if the chute was deployed, it's been proven that it does need a certain amount of altitude for it to be useful.

I wouldn't blame the chute nor the pilot. It was just a bad situation mixed with a bad moment.

May they rest in Peace.

797

[Edited 2011-11-27 23:41:50]

AirPacific747 · Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:32 am

I've flown the DA40 and the DA42 a lot. Both are great aircraft, but there were also problems with them many times. At my flying school, we had two independent engine failures. One landed on a field (luckily it was our chief flight instructor who flew that one and did a good job. He was not hurt) The other one was an instructor and a student descending from 13.000ft.. they had to glide down and land at a nearby airfield without engine power.

But handlingwise, they were both excellent aircraft.

Type-Rated · Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:47 am

Quoting 797 (Reply 15):
Why blame the Parachute? The weather was low VFR with four people on-board an engine-failed Cirrus... those ingredients do mix up to a fatal crash IMHO.

We're not blaming the parachute per se, but the idea that pilots take chances thinking if it all goes wrong for them they can pull the parachute and everyone walks away safely.

But that's not the case. Isn't the CAPS control placarded with something like "Severe structural damage will occur from use" or "Bodily injury may occur from this device"?

And pilots are required to get weather briefings before taking flight. This guy took a chance on the weather and instead of taking a 180 when he encountered weather he continued flight into known IFR conditions.

SEPilot · Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:59 am

I am a private pilot with about 1200 hours, most of it in Cessna's (mostly 182) but I have also flown the Piper Arrow quite a bit and the Mooney 231 a little. I have never flown a Cirrus, but from what I have read it should have a much better safety record than it does. I concur with those who blame its poor record on the false sense of security that the parachute provides. As to this accident, I did hear that the parachute was deployed and got tangled in a tree, which the photos posted in Reply 2 showed.

26point2 · Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:18 pm

Quoting 797 (Reply 15):
I wouldn't blame the chute nor the pilot. It was just a bad situation mixed with a bad moment.

Investigators rarely conclude the weather is the cause of an accident but nearly always conclude it was the pilot's decision to fly in the weather that was the primary cause. A pilot doing his job properly is not surprised by the weather he encounters....he has elected to fly into it. He can always stay on the ground or at least turn around. This is where good judgement comes in and most of us have it most of the time.....

jogales · Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:46 pm

One of the victims was a Junior criminal justice major at my school, we're all pretty shocked. The other three people killed were a father (the pilot, and a local businessman) and his two daughters.

Argue about the SR22 if you want, that's what this forum is for. Just remember that there were real people with real families who are now dealing with real loss. The pilot and his two daughters left behind a wife and 13 year old son. The other passenger, a student at my school, leaves behind parents and a little sister, not to mention his roommates and a campus that cared about him.

Josh

DiamondFlyer · Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:20 pm

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 4):
Look at the record of the Diamond DA40 compared to the SR-20/22.

A big part of the safety of the DA40 over the Cirrus is the type of fuel tanks. The DA40 has an aluminum fuel tank within the wing structure, where as the Cirrus only has the composite wing as the fuel tank. Look at the number of Cirrus that end up on fire after a crash. One hit to the wing and the fuel tank is punctured, resulting in a large fire with a spark. The DA40 rarely has a post impact fire.

I'm really surprised the FAA hasn't started looking into this issue, but as far as I know, they haven't.

-DiamondFlyer

Northwest727 · Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:12 pm

As a factory-trained CSIP CFI, I can say that I feel the problem with the SR-20/SR-22 lies not the aircraft itself, as have other people have mentioned, but the false sense of security pilots get with all of the standard automation, CAPs system, glass, sports-car interior, etc.

This has not been discussed at all on this thread: most insurance companies will not cover or permit a pilot to fly a Cirrus without having first been trained by a CSIP CFI. The reason is that Cirrus SR-22 was originally marketed as a "next generation" high performance single, like a Beechcraft Bonanza. It was to be a business aircraft aimed at "doctors." It was never envisioned to be an affordable trainer when it was first designed in that late 1990s. Then the dot-com bubble burst, Cirrus hit a snag, and decided to market the Cirrus SR-22 as a training airplane as well (and then the SR-20 with its lower performance was born, for this reason). So now we also have low-time, naive, and inexperienced pilots trying to fly an aircraft that is literally, too advanced and too much for them. When Cirrus started marketing the SR-22 as a trainer, is when the accident rate skyrocketed, and when the insurance companies took notice. Now, most aircraft insurance companies want Cirrus pilots to be trained by a CSIP CFI, and CFIs to get factory training to become a CSIP.

As for the aircraft, I love the side yoke, and found it natural like a yoke, but easier to control. You can simply rest your arm on the armrest and control the aircraft by wrist movements. Only downside is the muscle that controls your wrists are weaker than your arm, and therefore, you will have less power to overcome a force vs. a regular yoke. However, I absolutely hate the free-castering nosewheel. But Diamonds, Grummans, and the Cessna Corvalis (formerly Colombia) all have them as well, so I guess that is the way GA is moving.

planemaker · Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:37 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18):
I concur with those who blame its poor record on the false sense of security that the parachute provides. As to this accident, I did hear that the parachute was deployed and got tangled in a tree, which the photos posted in Reply 2 showed.

I don't think that the parachute really figures into the accident equation... going on with the trip with marginal weather was simple pilot error and I don't think for a moment he even thought that he might run into problems.

We'll have to wait for the FAA investigation however... judging from the crash pics, the aircraft really hit the ground at a very high rate of speed... it is just in small pieces. Considering the "roll cage" construction that Cirrus touts, along with the deployed parachute (which should have slowed down the aircraft a little bit even if it was streaming), the only explanation for that level of damage is due to a loss of control (mechanical or pilot induced) and a high speed impact at an acute angle.

The above is only my opinion from the crash scene photos.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 21):
I'm really surprised the FAA hasn't started looking into this issue, but as far as I know, they haven't.

It isn't an issue.

Quoting Northwest727 (Reply 22):
When Cirrus started marketing the SR-22 as a trainer, is when the accident rate skyrocketed,

Very few flight schools have SR-22s as trainers.

Northwest727 · Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:09 pm

Quoting planemaker (Reply 23):
Very few flight schools have SR-22s as trainers.

Not true. Tell that to the insurance company and Cirrus factory that both told me that; even the very flight school that I teach at has a Cirrus SR-20.

planemaker · Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:51 pm

Quoting Northwest727 (Reply 24):
Not true. Tell that to the insurance company and Cirrus factory that both told me that; even the very flight school that I teach at has a Cirrus SR-20.

Facts are facts.

Just because your a flight school has a single SR-20 means squat. You can't simply make up an assertion and not back it up with out some facts... and claiming that so-and-so told you doesn't cut it. In any case, Cirrus, just as simple matter of business, would never admit to what you claim even if it were true... but it ain't.

Aside from simple logic, one only has to look at the stats to see that what you claim is baseless.

As a starting point you have to at least show, first, that that there is a trend that Cirrus accidents were caused by pilots that had obtained their PPL in a Cirrus. Second, you have to show that the cause of that accident was due to the Cirrus.

The NTSB database shows that none of the above has happened. In fact, over 50% of fatal Cirrus accidents are with pilots with over 400 hrs and the only pilot with fewer than 150 hrs had an instructor in the right seat. Moreover, 3/4 of all fatal Cirrus accidents involved pilots with either an instrument, commercial or instructor certificate.

RaginMav · Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:13 pm

Quoting jogales (Reply 20):

Josh,

I am very sorry for your loss, I hope yourself and others affected by this tragedy can find some peace.

As for the rest of us, please keep the mud slinging to a minimum. The NTSB will work this out in due course.

DiamondFlyer · Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:51 pm

Quoting planemaker (Reply 23):
It isn't an issue.

What do you mean it isn't an issue. Look at the number of Cirrus crashes that result in a post impact fire versus any other GA aircraft out there. The Cirrus has a much higher rate of post impact fire, so much so that the only time the Cirrus doesn't end in a fire, is when it's out of fuel.

The design is a poor design, IMO, and should be changed in future designs. There is very little protection for the fuel tanks in the event of an impact to the wing.

-DiamondFlyer

planemaker · Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:22 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 27):
The Cirrus has a much higher rate of post impact fire, so much so that the only time the Cirrus doesn't end in a fire, is when it's out of fuel.

Oh, really, just what is the higher rate and where did you get the info from?

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 27):
The design is a poor design, IMO, and should be changed in future designs. There is very little protection for the fuel tanks in the event of an impact to the wing.

I guess that Boeing and Airbus should be alerted to redesign the 787 and A350 to use "aluminum fuel tanks" like Diamond does.

Another SR22 Crash

Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

RE: Another SR22 Crash

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net