5 Dead In MO SR-22 Crash

I don't see anything wrong with having personal minimums which are higher than published, however if you are going to do this you should raise your alternate minimums too.
 
Geico266 said:
[/B]

All 3 of your kids on the same plane. ;)
Click to expand...

This argument irritates me every time I see it. I'm not going to change the way I fly based on whether or not the other seats are full, or who is in them. I don't take any greater risks solo than I would with passengers. My wife has seen all my bad habits in an airplane, because I fly it the same way every time. The only possible exception I might make there would be a lower descent rate for her ears if she has a head cold, that's it. Maybe it's because of my engineering background, but I firmly believe that physics doesn't change based on the occupants of the aircraft - you fly by the numbers, each and every time.

If you are a test-pilot or air-racer or something of that nature, then I can see that the opposite might be true - but those people are also going into their solo adventures with full knowledge that they are off the bell-curve and hopefully will have sufficient life insurance etc in place already in case the risk jumps up and bites them. Test pilots and air racers do not haul passengers.

And no, Geico, I'm not calling you out for an argument so don't go there. I'm just saying this line of reasoning is foolish.
 
Last edited:
Damn this sucks. Flying any aircraft IFR to minimums is a sufficiently complex task that I doubt the pilot found a novel way to screw up. RIP to all.
 
Re: 5 Dead In MO SR-22 Chrash

craigvince said:
I'm so glad we don't need the NTSB investigators anymore to determine the cause of plane crashes. Just think how much taxpayer money we can save if we just let other pilots look at a photo and "know" the cause of the crash.

How about we don't speculate and just express our condolences to the family and friends.
Click to expand...

After every accident post there is always someone to crawl out of the woodwork and make this ridiculous argument.

This is a pilot's forum. Speculate is what we do. If you don't like it don't click on it.
 
sacbluesman said:
Is it me or does Cirrus seem to be in the news the majority of the time when a GA crash happens?
Click to expand...

Check Flightaware and the simple answer is that there are a lot of Cirrus aircraft flying. The NTSB recently broke out personal and business flying by subtracting planes flown by profession pilots and instructional flights. The GA accident rate then jumped to 2.2 which is above the Cirrus rate (1.4 in 2009). More interesting data is:

About 1 in 30 airplanes in the GA fleet (about 5,200 vs 155,000 single-engine piston fixed wing aircraft) are Cirrus,

About about 1 in 10 hours each year are flown in Cirrus aircraft but about 1 in 17 fatal accidents in the past couple of years (single engine piston fixed wing aircraft) are in Cirrus aircraft.
 
A 2002 Cirrus has a full fuel useful load of around 650 lbs with some being closer to 700 lbs. It is very difficult to get a Cirrus out of CG unless it is a G1 or G2 with the turbo mod and AC and which hasn't had the 18 lb tail weight added. I doubt many, if any, of those exist. While I don't condone 5 people in a 2002, I doubt CG or even weight was causal. If the plane had the STEC 55X AP (not certain but likely) it should have been able to fly a decent ILS unless conditions were gusty. The plane is borderline for ARNAV to Avidyne MFD transition so that is unknown as is Sandel 3308 vs Century HSI. It was a 6 pack i.e. no PFD.
 
peppy said:
Check Flightaware and the simple answer is that there are a lot of Cirrus aircraft flying. The NTSB recently broke out personal and business flying by subtracting planes flown by profession pilots and instructional flights. The GA accident rate then jumped to 2.2 which is above the Cirrus rate (1.4 in 2009). More interesting data is:

About 1 in 30 airplanes in the GA fleet (about 5,200 vs 155,000 single-engine piston fixed wing aircraft) are Cirrus,

About about 1 in 10 hours each year are flown in Cirrus aircraft but about 1 in 17 fatal accidents in the past couple of years (single engine piston fixed wing aircraft) are in Cirrus aircraft.
Click to expand...

Reference?

How could the NTSB possibly know which flights are instructional vs. not? I'm interested to see how they came up with their stats.
 
Basing accidents off of hours leans things toward the aircraft used for X-Cs more, though. Accident per hour minus cruise would be an interesting statistic.
 
It's all guesswork. Collins and others have been bitching about the methodology for 30 years.

TangoWhiskey said:
Reference?

How could the NTSB possibly know which flights are instructional vs. not? I'm interested to see how they came up with their stats.
Click to expand...
 
Bob Noel said:
huh?

I'm probably not getting what you really intended to say. "Good enough" isn't good enough?
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe I was a little obtuse...I meant that settling for being close to course, near the right altitude, at almost the right rate of descent, Etc. isn't a great way to survive in the IFR environment. I prefer to strive for perfection instead of settling for "good enough". Of course that is a personal opinion, but it has kept me alive while bumbling along in the ugly stuff.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Reference?

How could the NTSB possibly know which flights are instructional vs. not? I'm interested to see how they came up with their stats.
Click to expand...

Probably similar to how they know how many hours planes are flown in general. I don't know the specifics since I wasn't there. It was reported at the NTSB conference this past June (?) in Washington.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Yeah, maybe I was a little obtuse...I meant that settling for being close to course, near the right altitude, at almost the right rate of descent, Etc. isn't a great way to survive in the IFR environment. I prefer to strive for perfection instead of settling for "good enough". Of course that is a personal opinion, but it has kept me alive while bumbling along in the ugly stuff.
Click to expand...

Understood.

Thanks
 
denverpilot said:
Accident per hour minus cruise would be an interesting statistic.
Click to expand...
What is often being used in the industry is accidents per takeoffs (or departures). Professionally done studies by Boeing, others, frequently use such a metric. In GA there is always a problem of getting relevant data so accident rate can be analyzed at all, at this point I don't recall which data is easier to come by in GA (hourly or departure) and why.
 
Last edited:
Diamond managed to report numbers based on maintenance data. No idea why, with the computing power we have today, why usage data cannot be collected during an annual inspection and analyzed any which way til Sunday.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Yeah, maybe I was a little obtuse...I meant that settling for being close to course, near the right altitude, at almost the right rate of descent, Etc. isn't a great way to survive in the IFR environment. I prefer to strive for perfection instead of settling for "good enough". Of course that is a personal opinion, but it has kept me alive while bumbling along in the ugly stuff.
Click to expand...

Since the "perfect" flight is often elusive, how do you quantify safety or determine acceptable margins....being 1 foot, 1 degree off as such.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Diamond managed to report numbers based on maintenance data. No idea why, with the computing power we have today, why usage data cannot be collected during an annual inspection and analyzed any which way til Sunday.
Click to expand...

It's not required to be reported, is it? That would be additional regulation and reporting requirements, though I don't question the added value.
 
denverpilot said:
The insistence of "no speculation! Nooooo!" on Aviation accidents amongst pilots is silly.

If I crash, I'd want y'all to think of every possible reason it might have occurred and DON'T DO ANY OF THEM.

And as aviators, we owe at least five minutes of time to our significant others to tell them that people speculate about accidents and if we ever have a serious or fatal one, they're GOING to hear things.

And oh yeah, remind them that humans do screw up sometimes.

I'm saying nothing about this particular crash, but golly folks... people acting like its taboo to discuss fatal accidents in our sport/work just because it's one of a few avocations where there are pro investigation teams (many hobbies don't have this), is ludicrous.

Talk. Learn. Discuss. If people screw up and come to the wrong conclusion, and the pros later correct it, there is zero harm in it. Frankly, the dead pilot won't care and if they even took five minutes of time to discuss and plan with SOs about the realities of our flying, the SO isn't going to be bothered either. We must be honest with them and explain that well over 80% of fatal accidents are pilot error.

Go have this conversation with your SO now: "Sweetie, I might make a mistake. And if you go looking for it, you're going to find some folks guessing at what I might have done to kill myself. They may be right, they may be wrong, but I would want them to discuss it because any possible scenario they can avoid because I either did it and was a bad example, or that they even THINK I did, is better for aviation than them not discussing it."

The keep your opinions quiet is a leftover from military and test pilot aviation where folks die regularly and others just hold all comment and strap on another airplane the next day. It's neither healthy nor normal human behavior.

The insinuation that it's "respectful" is overblown, IMHO. You either learn from others mistakes or you make your own.

We've all known someone pesonally who crashed and dies in aviation eventually. All it takes is time. It's a rare aviator who reaches his day to hang it up who didn't meet a single other pilot who died flying. The more you meet, the greater your chances.

Why not honor them by looking hard under every rock for things they might have done that we should avoid? Waiting to assess doesn't really help. Getting a professional opinion 12-18 months later is great. But there's no harm in talking about it before that.
Click to expand...

A-freakin'-men, Nate.

Every pilot before they die is a "great pilot, very safe!" to all their non-pilot friends and family, no matter if they were Bob Hoover himself, or could barely get through a flight review without the CFI calling the FSDO and asking for advice.
Click to expand...

Yes. There are SO MANY crashes where the friends and relatives are quoted in the media saying how great of a pilot they were. It's our duty as pilots to live up to the image that our passengers have of us, since they are entrusting us with their very lives.

This is also another fallacy one should squash with their SO... "I'm not the best pilot in the World, and I always try to size up my limitations against the conditions. This is why I sometimes say that we aren't going flying today."

That second conversation would save a lot of get-home-itis deaths. If your SO sees nervousness in your eyes and knows you're not Buck Rogers, they just might ask... "Something bothering you about this flight, hon?"
Click to expand...

Yup. I've forced my SO to find a substitute beforehand just in case we can't make it back in time for her to get to work, and I've told people "we may not be able to get home tomorrow, so let's find alternate plans now, or leave tonight if we can't, if you can't afford to not be at work on Monday." And that's just in the last 2 months.

The other thing we need to do is to say "just because we go flying today, doesn't mean we're going to get where we're going." Conditions change en route frequently, and the pilots who are the die-hard-stick-to-plan-A type are going to get in trouble eventually. I've canceled flights right up to the point where I've finished the runup and I'm at the hold short line, and I've diverted plenty after taking off. Yeah, I usually get where I'm going - 95% of the time or better, I think - But sometimes you're gonna be late (including not getting there the same day), sometimes you're gonna have to go elsewhere and pound ground to get to your destination, sometimes you'll have to change your plans entirely. Flexibility is the key to good decision-making.
 
Re: 5 Dead In MO SR-22 Chrash

Jim Logajan said:
I also I don't know what you meant by "Improper IFR". Flying VFR into IMC?
Click to expand...

"Improper IFR" is the NTSB report catch-all for "the pilot screwed up IFR procedures." If they descend below MDA on an approach, fly off course, bust an altitude, etc. that results in the crash, it'll be labeled "Improper IFR." VFR into IMC is not "Improper IFR" because it isn't IFR at all, so it won't be labeled as such.

If it turned out the pilot knew there was a problem, then why didn't he deploy the parachute? That is the frustrating aspect to me.
Click to expand...

Likewise. However, it's much easier said than done, I'm sure. How long does it really take for us to admit to ourselves that we screwed up and we're going to destroy a plane doing it?

The other thing that comes to mind is that with 5 people aboard, he may have known that if he pulled the chute the FAA would come calling and he'd get into trouble for it. To quote Rick Durden on a Pilotcast from a few years ago: "You have to be alive to get into trouble." But, it's certainly another factor that could have delayed the pulling of the chute.
 
Last edited:
gprellwitz said:
I think that analysis is colored by your location. Here in the Midwest (and in many other locations, I'm sure), even if you don't know precisely where you are, as long as you're above about 800' - 1,500' (yes, these altitudes are location specific), add power and climb! Is there a possibility of a tower out there that'll smite you? Sure!

But the probability that you'll hit it, as opposed to having an injury deploying the BRS that low, seems to be a pretty good bet!

Note that this analysis does NOT pertain near big rocks like you deal with! I guess that this is another way of saying that it comes down to situational awareness!
Click to expand...

I think Nate's leaving the altitude blank is on purpose - It'll be different for every flight. The key thing is, you have to know what altitude that is for every flight, and better yet every portion of the flight! Once you've passed the highest obstacles on your flight, you could revise it lower, for example.
 
timwinters said:
So, you set your "personal minimum" at OVC005 and the weather was forecast to be OVC007 but when you arrive it's really OVC003. The airport has an ILS. Do you shoot it or do you fly 30 minutes to another airport That also has an ILS and that's currently reporting OVC005? (and hope it stays there).

Me...

I shoot the ILS at my destination airport and I think most others would too.

This is why I think that---when it really comes down to it---there are no "personal minimums" and one should always be prepared to shoot the approach to the published minimums because the forecast is rarely right. If one isn't comfortable and/or proficient enough to consider doing that then one may want to consider driving that day.

If I'm rusty enough to question my ability to shoot an approach to minimums on a day that I might need to...I drive.
Click to expand...

Another amen. You may choose to not depart with conditions forecast below a certain amount, but IMO if you're going to fly IFR you need to be willing to shoot approaches to minimums. Not personal minimums, published minimums.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Another amen. You may choose to not depart with conditions forecast below a certain amount, but IMO if you're going to fly IFR you need to be willing to shoot approaches to minimums. Not personal minimums, published minimums.
Click to expand...

Willing, yes. And able.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Another amen. You may choose to not depart with conditions forecast below a certain amount, but IMO if you're going to fly IFR you need to be willing to shoot approaches to minimums. Not personal minimums, published minimums.
Click to expand...

I disagree. You need to be able to do it but I'm ok with someone not wanting to do it. Also, a lot of IFR flying is popping up through a stratus layer and then dropping below one at the end. You don't even get an approach in. I don't see a problem with someone a little rusty making a flight like that but deciding to get with an instructor before launching into more challenging conditions.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Since the "perfect" flight is often elusive, how do you quantify safety or determine acceptable margins....being 1 foot, 1 degree off as such.
Click to expand...

I use +- 20 FPM for a NPA, +-3 degrees of heading corrected for wind. For GPS or ILS I use the needles. Of course no one is perfect.... but we all can fly to the highest standard we are capable of. IMHO to be a proficient instrument pilot you need the self-discipline to monitor your performance and execute the miss if you are not on course, on time, or on descent rate for a NP approach, get a full needle deflection, or bust any of the minimum altitudes.
 
Last edited:
peppy said:
I disagree. You need to be able to do it but I'm ok with someone not wanting to do it.
Click to expand...

We're saying the same thing two different ways...

Bottom line is, once you're in the sky, you need to be able to shoot to minimums.

Also, a lot of IFR flying is popping up through a stratus layer and then dropping below one at the end. You don't even get an approach in.
Click to expand...

Tell me about it... That's why I have to keep getting these pesky IPC's to stay current. :rofl:

I don't see a problem with someone a little rusty making a flight like that but deciding to get with an instructor before launching into more challenging conditions.
Click to expand...

Disagree - One of my landmark learning flights came when a rather benign forecast turned way south. Destination AWOS said 100-foot overcast, and that was far enough off that I figured the AWOS must be broken. It wasn't. Then, in the 15 minutes it took to get to my alternate, the alternate went from SKT090 and 10SM to OVC003 and 3/4SM. That's when I started really appreciating the fact that I still had about 4.5 hours of fuel aboard! I made it in, the plane behind me made it in, and that was it for the next 24 hours.

So, while things usually work out well, and while I rarely end up shooting an approach in actual, you've gotta be ready for it.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Disagree - One of my landmark learning flights came when a rather benign forecast turned way south. Destination AWOS said 100-foot overcast, and that was far enough off that I figured the AWOS must be broken. It wasn't. Then, in the 15 minutes it took to get to my alternate, the alternate went from SKT090 and 10SM to OVC003 and 3/4SM. That's when I started really appreciating the fact that I still had about 4.5 hours of fuel aboard! I made it in, the plane behind me made it in, and that was it for the next 24 hours.

So, while things usually work out well, and while I rarely end up shooting an approach in actual, you've gotta be ready for it.
Click to expand...

Ames, IA?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Another amen. You may choose to not depart with conditions forecast below a certain amount, but IMO if you're going to fly IFR you need to be willing to shoot approaches to minimums. Not personal minimums, published minimums.
Click to expand...
I still disagree with this. Part 135 and Part 121 have limitations for "high minimums" captains. If you don't have a certain number of hours PIC in type you are restricted to higher minimums.

135.225(e) The MDA or DA/DH and visibility landing minimums prescribed in part 97 of this chapter or in the operator's operations specifications are increased by 100 feet and1/2mile respectively, but not to exceed the ceiling and visibility minimums for that airport when used as an alternate airport, for each pilot in command of a turbine-powered airplane who has not served at least 100 hours as pilot in command in that type of airplane.
Click to expand...

I also know of companies which restrict their pilots to higher than published minimums at certain airports, especially mountain airports.

When doing this you need to leave yourself an out but you need to do that even if you are willing to fly to published minimums.
 
I averaged more than 500 hours/yr for more than 20 years flying piston airplanes in the midwest and southeast. My philsophy from the get-go is that travel is an inconvenience no matter how you do it, flying your own airplane just gives you more control of most of the inconveniences. For a while, I thought that I could just hop on the airlines if the weather precluded flying my single or twin, but quickly learned that if couldn't fly they probably weren't flying either. The reasons were sometimes different, if for example the inbound flight was stuck in Chicago or the outbound was grounded for mechanical problems, but the big lines of thunderstorms that kept me on the ground often snagged the carriers too.

Once I came to grips with the fact that my percentages of completing the trip were almost identical whether I flew in my airplane or theirs, and that there would be days when none of us were going, my go/no-go decisions became a lot easier, and my "aint' nobody flying even the birds are walking" call to the guys I was supposed to see in whatever town became a lot more relaxed.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Disagree - One of my landmark learning flights came when a rather benign forecast turned way south. Destination AWOS said 100-foot overcast, and that was far enough off that I figured the AWOS must be broken. It wasn't. Then, in the 15 minutes it took to get to my alternate, the alternate went from SKT090 and 10SM to OVC003 and 3/4SM. That's when I started really appreciating the fact that I still had about 4.5 hours of fuel aboard! I made it in, the plane behind me made it in, and that was it for the next 24 hours.

So, while things usually work out well, and while I rarely end up shooting an approach in actual, you've gotta be ready for it.
Click to expand...

The weather can change argument you make should be applied evenly. When that is done it leads to the interesting result that you should never fly. Since you say several thousand feet isn't enough margin then that should apply to any minimums. Your argument means that even with 1000' ceilings all around that there is the possibility that it will be zero-zero when you get to your destination. We all have to forecast the odds the weather will be variable. Consider my rusty pilot example. He goes to the airport and takes off with a 3000' ceiling and CAVU everywhere around his destination. Contrast that to you taking off with 800' ceilings at your destination but a front moving in and ceilings dropping rapidly. Who is more likely to be caught in a situation he can't handle? Just saying the weather can change is too open ended. It is theoretically possible to go on a VFR flight and wind up with zero-zero conditions all around. However, quickly looking at the synoptic weather picture can make sure those odds are very low. So, I disagree with your statement. In a similar vein, it would be great if we all trained with an instructor for a couple of hours each week and were always our best. However, most GA pilots can't do that. We need to be aware that we aren't professional pilots. We need to do our best to stay well trained but we also need to be realistic about our skills and fly accordingly.
 
FWIW- I'm thinking of building a home sim after I get my IR to help keep the rust off.
 
wabower said:
Elite is much cheaper and very effective.
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right?

Elite's website said:
The ELITE PI-135 Basic ATD is our most afford­able, fully pro­ce­dural sys­tem, which can be used for com­plete startup, flight, and shut­down pro­ce­dures. You can even use the PI-135 to per­form the approaches, hold­ing pro­ce­dures, and intercepting/tracking required under sec­tion 61.57©(1) for recent instru­ment expe­ri­ence (instru­ment cur­rency)! (PC and mon­i­tors not included, but avail­able separately.)
$7,500.00
Click to expand...
I think I can do better than $7,500
 
Everskyward said:
I still disagree with this. Part 135 and Part 121 have limitations for "high minimums" captains. If you don't have a certain number of hours PIC in type you are restricted to higher minimums.
Click to expand...

That makes sense to me, though - I wouldn't fly IFR until I was comfortable with an aircraft type VFR. Airlines don't have that option. They're also bound by the rules to not even shoot an approach if the reported weather is below their minimums, so they'll be headed for a reasonable alternate much earlier than most of us flivvers.

I don't disagree with using one's judgement to avoid situations that may push one's skills to the limit. What I mainly disagree with is starting to shoot an approach but going missed at some higher DA.
 
Jaybird180 said:
You're kidding, right?


I think I can do better than $7,500
Click to expand...

Yes, but his point I think is $7,500 is cheaper then flying to only keep the rust off. Not that it's cheaper then other sims.

However $7,500 is a lot of flying.
 
Last edited:
peppy said:
We need to do our best to stay well trained but we also need to be realistic about our skills and fly accordingly.
Click to expand...

IMO, a pilot who isn't comfortable flying an ILS to 200 feet is probably just as dangerous going missed at 500 feet as he is flying the ILS to 200 feet, breaking out and landing.

Now, if he hears the AWOS and decides to go elsewhere... Great. But IMO, you shouldn't even start shooting an approach unless you're willing to fly to published minimums.
 
Our club has an elite sim.. its okay... and by okay I mean it kinda sucks.

$7500 will get you around 3.5 years of currency flying under the hood. Thats based on 2.5 hours per month and a guess that you'll get enough actual to stay current for three months per year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top