Fatal Crash at First Flight, 9/28

I just put in the better numbers by default if you put in 200+ adults it’ll make it worse with full tanks.

Putting two front passengers at 160lbs and two 130lb in the back with no baggage and half tanks you’re in the envelope. With full tanks at 92g, you’ll be out of range.
a0a4627349b500119582f545bdf0078c.png
 
@AV8R_87: Can someone estimate the W&B for four adults, one child, and full fuel?
@Feh: My W&B loading setup only has four seats but let's put a total of 410 lbs in front and 368 lbs in the back. And let's make two of them men and two of them women, although that doesn't affect W&B.
The rest of POA: Argues over whether 184 lbs is too much for a woman or 205 lbs is too little for a man.

Whether the W&B was out of the envelope or not, they made one takeoff, a short cross-country flight, and 1-1/2 trips around the pattern including a go-around. Maybe the flight envelope was smaller than the pilot was used to because of loading, but not to the point that the plane couldn't fly at all. I don't have experience with stall recovery in a plane loaded beyond its envelope, only to the extremes, and I have no experience at all in a Cirrus. But my assessment here is that the pilot simply stalled in the pattern just like someone could do with any other plane.
 
Do we know for sure if they even left ground effect?
If we accept the ADS-B tracks, the crash was after turning final. The circle is the last spot the aircraft is picked up on Flightaware (left). ADS-B Exchange (right) seems to pick it up a little longer Drops off short of the runway in a 1000+ FPM descent.

1727709182481.png1727709244969.png
 
Maybe the flight envelope was smaller than the pilot was used to because of loading, but not to the point that the plane couldn't fly at all. I don't have experience with stall recovery in a plane loaded beyond its envelope, only to the extremes,

Obviously the plane wasn’t unable to fly; it was flying. But flight characteristics are different when a plane is overloaded.

Stall speed is higher at higher weight. If he was flying his usual IAS on final, he may have stalled the plane unexpectedly and at too low an altitude for recovery. Not saying that happened, just that it’s possible and one of the risks with flying an overloaded plane.
 
Obviously the plane wasn’t unable to fly; it was flying. But flight characteristics are different when a plane is overloaded.

Stall speed is higher at higher weight. If he was flying his usual IAS on final, he may have stalled the plane unexpectedly and at too low an altitude for recovery. Not saying that happened, just that it’s possible and one of the risks with flying an overloaded plane.
Agreed. Like I said, the envelope may (we don't know) have been smaller than usual. Less controllable due to aft CG. Stall at higher IAS for a given bank angle due to weight. The things I don't know are how an imminent stall feels in a Cirrus and how hard it is to recover from an imminent stall in excessive weight or excessive aft CG conditions. All we really know is that this pilot, in this plane, on this approach, appears to have stalled the plane and not recovered before impact (due to skill, surprise, or simply too low of an altitude for anyone to save it).
 
I tend to feel the classic base-to-final stall spin is over hyped as a cause, but it sure looks applicable here.

Reported wind of 170 on runway 21 would be a tailwind on base. ADS-B track shows both downwind-to-base turns rounded. Both base-to-final turns are sharp.

Looks to me like he failed to anticipate the wind, saw he was going to overshoot runway centerline, and tightened up the final turn.

Mix in poor speed control, possible overloading, an aircraft not really known for agile maneuvering, and training/practice that probably focused on systems vs stick & rudder.
 
Last edited:
I tend to feel the classic base-to-final stall spin is over hyped as a cause, but it sure looks applicable here.

Reported wind of 170 on runway 21 would be a tailwind on base. Both downwind-to-base turns are rounded. Both base-to-final turns are sharp.

Looks to me like he failed to anticipate the wind, saw he was going to overshoot runway centerline, and tightened up the final turn.

Mix in poor speed control, possible overloading, an aircraft not really known for agile maneuvering, and training/practice that probably focused on systems vs stick & rudder.

I suspect you’re right. A bit too much bank in the base to final turn with an increased stall speed due to the loading, and a stall-spin could be likely.
 
And when the stall warning sounds, announce that you are well above stall speed, no worries.
 
I do not think this accident happened on the base to final turn. They seemed to have flown a fairly stable one-mile final on the second approach. I think it’s more likely either a loss of control during the landing, or even more likely, a failed second go-around.
 
I think a fair base assumption is simply that very little planning was done. Probably because of the length of the flight. Wrong side of the pattern, almost guaranteed to be overweight, way too fast in the pattern. He did have fuel though!

“It’s just a short flight.”

Sigh.
 
Last edited:
I do not think this accident happened on the base to final turn. They seemed to have flown a fairly stable one-mile final on the second approach. I think it’s more likely either a loss of control during the landing, or even more likely, a failed second go-around.
Yeah, the ADS-B track doesn't look like a base-to-final turn accident. Could have been a crash on a possible second go-around (we've seen that before) or maybe a stall on final. Imagine the pilot is flustered by an awkward pattern, behind the airplane, can't seem correct for wind, and failed first attempt. Turning final for second time, pilot thinks, "'short runway, get it slowed down this time"?
 
Yeah, the ADS-B track doesn't look like a base-to-final turn accident. Could have been a crash on a possible second go-around (we've seen that before) or maybe a stall on final. Imagine the pilot is flustered by an awkward pattern, behind the airplane, can't seem correct for wind, and failed first attempt. Turning final for second time, pilot thinks, "'short runway, get it slowed down this time"?

Lots of possibilities. Maybe a go-around and he overpitched and/or retracted the flaps while he was still slow, causing a stall.
 
The wimmins weighed 184 pounds each?


They took off & flew, even if the weight & balance was a bit off, the plane was flyable. I think it was just the more common lapse in control, rather than major W&B issue.
As I recently mentioned in another thread, even within the balance limits, the stall characteristics can significantly change between forward CG and aft CG locations. All the in range CG location ensure is that the stall is recoverable, But an aft CG can be significantly easier to enter a stall Spin Scenario, where as some forward CG locations it may not even be possible.

I once flew a 172 aft of the CG, I suspected it might be and kept my speeds up. Flight went just fine except for as I slowed down for the roundout/flare for landing, the nose starting going up on it's own. I touched down with full forward elevator. Made sure I never did that again.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
I do not think this accident happened on the base to final turn. They seemed to have flown a fairly stable one-mile final on the second approach. I think it’s more likely either a loss of control during the landing, or even more likely, a failed second go-around.
Where was the wreckage?
 
Holy moley.
The US average is 200# for men and 170# for women and overweight. Sure, you could load the plane with four obese passengers, but it's a strange assumption.
 
I haven't seen it reported, but suspect it to probably be on airport property, otherwise we might be hearing about ground injuries/damaged houses.
National Transportation Safety Board aviation accident investigator Ryan Enders told Wavy TV 10 that it was during the airplane’s second attempt to land that it “made a left-turn and impacted trees adjacent to the left side of the runway.”
 
I’ll take “Skidded base to final turn” for $100, Alex.
ADS-B data shows an additional 40 seconds of data flying down final after completing the base-to-final turn just prior to crossing the shore line, about 4800 ft from the runway 21 threshold.

Using instantaneous ground speed and ROD data, I calculate flight path angles between 6 and 9 degrees as the aircraft flew along final.
 
Lots of possibilities. Maybe a go-around and he overpitched and/or retracted the flaps while he was still slow, causing a stall.

I have no idea what caused this particular crash but will note that retracting the flaps while too slow was what caused a Cirrus to crash at Hobby airport after several attempts to land. Pretty sure everyone here has viewed this Air Safety video but in case you haven't, here's a a link. This video will bring a lot of emotions from you at how this tragedy unfolds:

Cirrus crash at Hobby Airport
 
I have about 500 hours in Cirrus, most in the 22. They fly like any other airplane I’ve flow. The stick takes about 5 minutes to get used to. It will climb 750 fpm on go around with full flaps. The first couple times you go full power while low and slow in landing configuration it may be surprising as to how much rudder it takes to keep bad things from happening, not unlike any other high powered single. I would fly into the downwind at between 120 and 100 knots depending upon what is going on. First notch of flaps opposite the touch down point, full flaps typically on base. 100 knots slowing to 90 by base, 80 or so on short final and 78 or slower if light over the fence. On the g5s and later you can add the first notch at 150 Kias, the earlier models it was 119 knots iirc.

Like any aircraft, speed control in the pattern is important. You can definitely feel decaying airspeed in the plane, the controls start to feel mushy, the plane gets quiet, and most importantly, in the newer planes, bitching Betty makes a racket. You can’t miss it, even before Betty starts talking if you pay attention.

The stall is very docile and predictable. If a wing does drop, there is ample rudder to bring it back into line.

I honestly think some pilots get into trouble trying to fly a cub pattern in a plane that enters the pattern at a speed greater than a cub’s cruise speed.
Thanks for this. I've never flown one, often read about how "weird" they are, and have wondered how much of those opinions are from actual experience or just passing along second hand info. Good to hear that they fly like a normal aircraft.

Is it safe to say, though, that since they are a bit slipperier than a PA-28 or 172, that they're not going to slow down as easy on final, so a steep or fast final may not be a great plan? And that may not be a great plan in a 172/PA-28, either, but "I need more drag" isn't something you hear too much from a PA-28 pilot. That's a bit to the point of the cub pattern post, but it would seem just as easy to be too fast/too steep on a long straight approach.
 
I have no idea what caused this particular crash but will note that retracting the flaps while too slow was what caused a Cirrus to crash at Hobby airport after several attempts to land. Pretty sure everyone here has viewed this Air Safety video but in case you haven't, here's a a link. This video will bring a lot of emotions from you at how this tragedy unfolds:

Cirrus crash at Hobby Airport
That's a good observation. It provides a possibility for the puzzling loss of control and crash while flying an otherwise unremarkable and apparent straight line final.
 
ADS-B data shows an additional 40 seconds of data flying down final after completing the base-to-final turn just prior to crossing the shore line, about 4800 ft from the runway 21 threshold.

Using instantaneous ground speed and ROD data, I calculate flight path angles between 6 and 9 degrees as the aircraft flew along final.
You can’t trust all adsb data. Many like FlightAware use algorithms that attempt to fill in the blanks in ways that are far from accurate. If a track stops at altitude, such as when a stall spin occurs, they may assume the flight continued and plot it as such.
 
ADS-B data shows an additional 40 seconds of data flying down final after completing the base-to-final turn just prior to crossing the shore line, about 4800 ft from the runway 21 threshold.
where have you seen that? Do you have another source? All I’ve seen in both FlightAware and ADS-B Exchange were two landing attempts, one which appears to result in a go around and a second which ends on final (presumably with the crash).
 
Last edited:
where have you seen that? Do you have another source! All I’ve seen in both FlightAware and ADS-B Exchange were two landing attempts, one which appears to result in a go around and a second which ends on final (presumably with the crash).
In addition to what I said in my last post, I’ve seen that FlightAware changes a flight path at times, whether by enriching it from other sources or adjusting the initial plot. I collect the raw adsb data with my own receivers and I see this all the time when comparing their data to the raw data I collected.
 
In addition to what I said in my last post, I’ve seen that FlightAware changes a flight path at times, whether by enriching it from other sources or adjusting the initial plot. I collect the raw adsb data with my own receivers and I see this all the time when comparing their data to the raw data I collected.
No disagreement on that. But it doesn’t answer my question to @AquaLand.
 
ADS-B Exchange which is entirely raw data paints a more complete picture of the moments leading to the mishap. Descent rate approximately -1200 fpm shortly after turn to final. It certainly didn't appear to be a "stable" approach but it was in a straight line all the way to the ground.

 
ADS-B Exchange which is entirely raw data paints a more complete picture of the moments leading to the mishap. Descent rate approximately -1200 fpm shortly after turn to final. It certainly didn't appear to be a "stable" approach but it was in a straight line all the way to the ground.

This is what I based my analysis on as well. The approaches were steep, but straight.

There are too many individual data hits along the final to conclude anything other than it flew that path, twice.
 
Cirrus is highly spin resistant by design, correct?

So perhaps result of accelerated stall on final turn would be continued straight ahead stall.

IOW maybe pilot rode the stall all the way to the ground pulling back on the stick.

Hopefully initial report will fill in blanks on wreckage location, impact orientation, and aircraft config.
 
OK, and the question is, "What is a bootful of rudder?"
My primary instructor was very old school, he was 76 when I started taking lessons with him. One thing he drilled into me was that landing was what happened when you didn’t find an excuse to go around. And one of those excuses was overshooting centerline. Granted it’s not likely to have happened here but he said when you over shoot the base to final, people tend to pull the nose with inside rudder while trying to roll out of the turn with opposite aileron.

Go around. We practiced them all the time. And to this day I don’t get what’s so hard about them.
 
Cirrus is highly spin resistant by design, correct?

So perhaps result of accelerated stall on final turn would be continued straight ahead stall.

IOW maybe pilot rode the stall all the way to the ground pulling back on the stick.

Hopefully initial report will fill in blanks on wreckage location, impact orientation, and aircraft config.

Sorry, that doesn’t make much sense. They stalled while in the turn, somehow managed to complete the turn and fly straight on final, but stayed in the stall and did not recover for 700-800 feet down and a mile forward?

I don’t know where the idea of the base to final stall crept into the conversation (maybe based on incomplete flightaware data?), but the more complete ADS-B data doesn’t support that, nor does the NTSB saying the wreckage was located in the trees to the left of the runway.

Here’s a pic that might help illustrate, the data pulled straight from ADS-B Exchange. Note there are two finals. The signal is lost for both right about 100’ and the threshold (which is typical LOS blockage for the receivers that forward the data), so it doesn’t illustrate the events over or along the runway for either approach (this we can’t see the actual path of the crash). Both approaches were fairly steep, but pretty straight.

IMG_4014.jpeg

I added a blue arrow representing the general reported wind direction and an orange circle representing the trees adjacent to the left side of the runway into which the NTSB said the airplane crashed.

Note: the AWOS is located near the segmented circle on the west-southwest side of the runway, however a wind as reported from 170 true would be along the shown azimuth to the runway 21 threshold. There is a large clearing along that azimuth during short final, but the hill and the monument, then the stand of trees that begin complementary to that azimuth and the threshold could complicate an already gusty wind situation as you’re crossing the threshold.
 
You can’t trust all adsb data. Many like FlightAware use algorithms that attempt to fill in the blanks in ways that are far from accurate. If a track stops at altitude, such as when a stall spin occurs, they may assume the flight continued and plot it as such.
Which datapoints are made up?

FA tells you when it's an estimated vs. actual position. And it matches the NTSB statement that they crashed adjacent to the runway. Not over the ocean/beach where the base-to-final turn was.
 
Cirrus is highly spin resistant by design, correct?

So perhaps result of accelerated stall on final turn would be continued straight ahead stall.

IOW maybe pilot rode the stall all the way to the ground pulling back on the stick.

Hopefully initial report will fill in blanks on wreckage location, impact orientation, and aircraft config.

I don’t know if they are spin resistant, I did an unusual attitude recovery course with a Cirrus school and the instructor showed me a drawing of a cirrus in a spin. The illustration showed the high wing blocking or disrupting airflow over the rudder. His implication was a longer spin recovery in a cirrus due to this, which translates into more altitude lost.

I wonder when I see stall spin if the newer recovery methods are part of the problem. The Cirrus wing has two separate airfoils and is designed to stall at the root section first, the outer section later. The idea is that you hear and feel the root stall, then take action.

From what I understand, most pattern turn stalls are a result of getting slow, flying uncoordinated, then yanking and banking. The problem is unlike a practice stall, the whole wing stalls quickly and you are done. The dual airfoil is useless in that scenario.

Now add to that the way Cirrus recommends fixing a stalled wing drop is gentle coordinated aileron and rudder inputs. Which is probably fine when just the inner part of the wing stalls, but when the whole wing is stalled the aileron is an issue. Furthermore when something you are trained to do doesn’t work, the natural tendency is to do it more.
 
Concerning the out of trim full power go around: Never do anything fast in an airplane, as in rushing things. In normal situations, where most crashes happen. Gentle works.
 
Back
Top