Cirrus down at PVU 9/27 16:00Z

Early indications are a stall in the pattern after a go around. They may of pulled the chute very late, ended up in 8.5’ of water. Two on board.
 
ADS-B makes it look like they tucked in close behind another, slower arrival and went around. Go around was normal at first. They got up to around 115 groundspeed on downwind, the. started slowing midfield downwind but stayed at pattern alt until just before base, while the groundspeed bled to 80kts. The spin occurred just after the base turn. There wasn’t much altitude lost before that, maybe 100-150’ from when the base started to the loss of signal.

Weather was clear and calm.
 
Tapes seem to indicate a bit of confusion on initial approach to airport call and started going south from there. Re; ATC Live 16:00-16:15 Z 9/27
 
Tragic. Looks as if the pilot left behind a widow and 4 children.
Flight track from St George is consistent with autopilot. I assume an SR-22 has flight director mode on the g1000, and if engaged, will give an audible airspeed warning? Is that correct?
 
SFDukie said:
Flight track from St George is consistent with autopilot. I assume an SR-22 has flight director mode on the g1000, and if engaged, will give an audible airspeed warning? Is that correct?
Click to expand...
This was a very very early Cirrus. No perspective. Not sure if those old birds had a flight director.
 
Rockymountain said:
This was a very very early Cirrus. No perspective. Not sure if those old birds had a flight director.
Click to expand...
Wow. Serial number 3.
Wikipedia says steam gauges and 10” mfd display.
 
My impression (no hard data) is that Cirrus is more prone to stalls in the pattern than the rest of small planes. This was a CFI, by the way.
 
MountainDude said:
My impression (no hard data) is that Cirrus is more prone to stalls in the pattern than the rest of small planes. This was a CFI, by the way.
Click to expand...
If so, only because the stall speed is substantially higher than the Skyhawk or Cherokee the pilot likely learned in. I'd put a Bo in the same category. Still, one can "feel" this happening, and one must react. Or better yet, never get into that situation.
 
Uh… this video literally says this is a classic stall spin with nothing to do at all with the Cirrus design.

In fact the only Cirrus specific content is that while the split wing works “exactly as advertised” it is not “stall proof”

60 degree bank and a loaded wing a couple of hundred agl is no way to go through life son…
 
Kenny Phillips said:
If so, only because the stall speed is substantially higher than the Skyhawk or Cherokee the pilot likely learned in. I'd put a Bo in the same category. Still, one can "feel" this happening, and one must react. Or better yet, never get into that situation.
Click to expand...
I'd disagree on the "one can 'feel'"... IMHO, the spring-loaded stick of the Cirrus masks much of the "feel" that one gets from a direct (cable or push rod) connection with the control surfaces.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
If so, only because the stall speed is substantially higher than the Skyhawk or Cherokee the pilot likely learned in. I'd put a Bo in the same category. Still, one can "feel" this happening, and one must react. Or better yet, never get into that situation.
Click to expand...

wayneda40 said:
I'd disagree on the "one can 'feel'"... IMHO, the spring-loaded stick of the Cirrus masks much of the "feel" that one gets from a direct (cable or push rod) connection with the control surfaces.
Click to expand...
So, to learn from this incident, what I hear you saying is this:

Know the VS0 for the plane you are flying AT BANK ANGLES, and fly your approach by the numbers at 1.3x. Slow it down AFTER you are on final and stabilized.

Have I got it right?
 
MountainDude said:
My impression (no hard data) is that Cirrus is more prone to stalls in the pattern than the rest of small planes. This was a CFI, by the way.
Click to expand...
Pilots involved in Cirrus accidents tend to be less experienced than those in other high-performance aircraft.

My database of production aircraft is spotty, but my Cirrus one covers 1998 through 2021, and it shows the pilots involved had a median of 730 hours total time. I have a Bonanza 36 database covering 1998 through 2014, and the pilots there have almost twice as much time (1450 hours median). You'd expect a higher rate of stall accidents with the less-experienced pilots, and because of that, it doesn't justify blaming the aircraft itself.

12.6% of Cirrus accidents involve the pilot stalling, vs. 7.9% of Bonanza 36. This counts *only* those cases where the pilot inadvertently stalls during *normal* operations...it does not include stalling after an engine failure.

Curiously, the pilot-error rate for both aircraft is almost the same... 55.6% for the Cirrus, 54.1% for the Bonanza 36. The Cirrus has a higher rate of Pilot Miscontrol (e.g., mistakes in the actual control of the aircraft), but a much lower rate (2.2% vs. 11.5%) of accidents related to managing fuel.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
Here’s the link to the Live ATC audio.

Initial impressions:

The airspace was very busy. Multiple inbounds, pattern traffic, transition traffic, helicopters, practice approaches, and a biz jet holding for IFR release.

The Cirrus’ (N831AZ) ended up high and fast as they approached the first time, maybe it was to stay above the delta because two-way comms were not yet established. Their initial call was stepped on - no response from the tower. Their second call at 5 miles out eventually got a response. Tower had them extend downwind and follow a Sport Cruiser on final. Per ADS-B, the Cirrus turned final about 1/2 mile behind the much slower Sport Cruiser with a 30-40 knot overtake. That’s what setup the go-around. Note that the Cirrus did not hear tower’s instruction to go around, and called their own (with almost exactly the same verbiage) a few moments later.

For whatever reason - maybe the scanner that feeds recording missed it, maybe something else (being stepped on, landline, whatever), tower almost seemed to not hear/respond to several calls. Instructions were very fast - especially every time they said “runway 1-3,” it almost sounded like “3.” The accident aircraft had a tough time with one of those on the go-around - asking for clarification “3-3?” (which doesn’t exist).

Then the thing I described earlier - the Cirrus stayed at pattern altitude well beyond the abeam point and slowed way down before the base turn and subsequent stall/spin.
 
Flying Keys said:
Here’s the link to the Live ATC audio.

Initial impressions:

The airspace was very busy. Multiple inbounds, pattern traffic, transition traffic, helicopters, practice approaches, and a biz jet holding for IFR release.

The Cirrus’ (N831AZ) ended up high and fast as they approached the first time, maybe it was to stay above the delta because two-way comms were not yet established. Their initial call was stepped on - no response from the tower. Their second call at 5 miles out eventually got a response. Tower had them extend downwind and follow a Sport Cruiser on final. Per ADS-B, the Cirrus turned final about 1/2 mile behind the much slower Sport Cruiser with a 30-40 knot overtake. That’s what setup the go-around. Note that the Cirrus did not hear tower’s instruction to go around, and called their own (with almost exactly the same verbiage) a few moments later.

For whatever reason - maybe the scanner that feeds recording missed it, maybe something else (being stepped on, landline, whatever), tower almost seemed to not hear/respond to several calls. Instructions were very fast - especially every time they said “runway 1-3,” it almost sounded like “3.” The accident aircraft had a tough time with one of those on the go-around - asking for clarification “3-3?” (which doesn’t exist).

Then the thing I described earlier - the Cirrus stayed at pattern altitude well beyond the abeam point and slowed way down before the base turn and subsequent stall/spin.
Click to expand...
Thats a pretty thorough description of the events leading up to this sad incident. Thanks for taking the time to put it together from what we can hear (tapes) and see (ADSB) at this time.
 
I'd be happy to trade a nice bottle of scotch for some time with you and your database. I think to be fair the Bo vs Cirrus operator hours should be normalized a little more, as the Bonanza's have been around for so many more decades.

The real question is "how many hours does the pilot have on day 1 of purchase" of Bonanza vs Cirrus. No obvious way to capture that.
wanttaja said:
Pilots involved in Cirrus accidents tend to be less experienced than those in other high-performance aircraft.

My database of production aircraft is spotty, but my Cirrus one covers 1998 through 2021, and it shows the pilots involved had a median of 730 hours total time. I have a Bonanza 36 database covering 1998 through 2014, and the pilots there have almost twice as much time (1450 hours median). You'd expect a higher rate of stall accidents with the less-experienced pilots, and because of that, it doesn't justify blaming the aircraft itself.

12.6% of Cirrus accidents involve the pilot stalling, vs. 7.9% of Bonanza 36. This counts *only* those cases where the pilot inadvertently stalls during *normal* operations...it does not include stalling after an engine failure.

Curiously, the pilot-error rate for both aircraft is almost the same... 55.6% for the Cirrus, 54.1% for the Bonanza 36. The Cirrus has a higher rate of Pilot Miscontrol (e.g., mistakes in the actual control of the aircraft), but a much lower rate (2.2% vs. 11.5%) of accidents related to managing fuel.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
 
Hengelo said:
I'd be happy to trade a nice bottle of scotch for some time with you and your database. I think to be fair the Bo vs Cirrus operator hours should be normalized a little more, as the Bonanza's have been around for so many more decades.

The real question is "how many hours does the pilot have on day 1 of purchase" of Bonanza vs Cirrus. No obvious way to capture that.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of tricks one could try, but the problem lies in how reliable the data is and all the other factors that might affect things.

I tried subtracting the aircraft's time from the pilot's total time, but obviously that doesn't work if the airplane has been on the rental line...and there's no way to determine that. Especially doesn't translate to the Bonanza world, where most of the planes have probably had multiple owners.

Cirrus CEN23LA055 is one example where this seems to work. Aircraft total time 53 hours, pilot time in type 43 hours. Pilot total time 177 at the time of the accident; probably a good guess they bought the airplane when they had ~120 hours total time. But there are just too many cases where the results are wonky. And all the Bonanzas have too much time for a comparative study.

Median total aircraft time for the Cirri was 896 hours, vs. 2735 for the Bonanza 36s. Median time-in-type was 183 hours for the Cirri, vs. 300 for the Bonanzas. Not far-fetched, when one remembers the Cirrus pilots had half the number of total hours.

Always find interesting cases when I review data. NYC05LA110, for example...Cirrus pilot passed out at 3,000. Awoke and found the plane in a high-speed dive; one of his legs was numb. Pulled the CAPS at 1700 feet.

Turns out the pilot had a brain tumor. His medical was current. He had a total of 1652 hours, 1430 on type. The Cirrus itself had 1410 hours, so it's possible the pilot bought it new.

Oh, one other thing: The pilot had only a Student certificate.

Makes you wonder....

Ron Wanttaja
 
I applaud the ingenuity but agree the data isn’t there.

Just one question 1600 hours on a student cert?!?
 
Hengelo said:
I applaud the ingenuity but agree the data isn’t there.

Just one question 1600 hours on a student cert?!?
Click to expand...
Yup. Sometimes when there are two persons aboard, the PIC flag may indicate the person with the less experience, but in this case, he was alone....
1727653779921.png
53 hours in the past 30 days. With just a Student certificate, he (probably) wasn't flying professionally (and his medical was just a Class 3).

Ron Wanttaja
 
wayneda40 said:
I'd disagree on the "one can 'feel'"... IMHO, the spring-loaded stick of the Cirrus masks much of the "feel" that one gets from a direct (cable or push rod) connection with the control surfaces.
Click to expand...
Fully agree. One of the biggest reasons I bought a Diamond over the Cirrus.
 
wanttaja said:
Yup. Sometimes when there are two persons aboard, the PIC flag may indicate the person with the less experience, but in this case, he was alone....
View attachment 133954
53 hours in the past 30 days. With just a Student certificate, he (probably) wasn't flying professionally (and his medical was just a Class 3).

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
BONKERS
 
wanttaja said:
Yup. Sometimes when there are two persons aboard, the PIC flag may indicate the person with the less experience, but in this case, he was alone....
View attachment 133954
53 hours in the past 30 days. With just a Student certificate, he (probably) wasn't flying professionally (and his medical was just a Class 3).

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
How does a student pilot amass that much time, and how do they get insurance for a plane like that? Seems that there must be more to the story than is initially clear
 
StraightnLevel said:
How does a student pilot amass that much time, and how do they get insurance for a plane like that? Seems that there must be more to the story than is initially clear
Click to expand...

From a purely legal standpoint, a student pilot could keep getting solo endorsements as long as he liked, and there’s no regulatory requirement for insurance.

But not everyone pays attention to the rules, and enforcement is pretty haphazard for someone flying his own plane. We’re about 80% honor system.
 
FastEddieB said:
In short, they’re designed to be quite “spin resistant”. But it seems like inherent in that design is a suddenness of a stall/spin if provoked.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone fly a plane like that? Especially that low to the ground.
 
In listening to Tower radio traffic, it sounds like the controller was working both ground and Tower. Additionally, his speech was not real clear. He mumbled a lot. I can't help but think these contributed to the accident, as it definitely caused additional radio calls from multiple airplanes because they had trouble understanding him...
 
FPK1 said:
In listening to Tower radio traffic, it sounds like the controller was working both ground and Tower. Additionally, his speech was not real clear. He mumbled a lot. I can't help but think these contributed to the accident, as it definitely caused additional radio calls from multiple airplanes because they had trouble understanding him...
Click to expand...
Agreed. I can usually follow along with even the fastest-speaking ATCs but this one left me shaking my head a few times. Now imagine trying to pick out the relevant info while in the cockpit and not sitting at a desk...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top