Cirrus accident, Knoxville, TN 12/16/21

FastEddieB

FastEddieB

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Messages
11,542
Location
Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
Karen just informed me of this, which I somehow missed.

https://www.wvlt.tv/2021/12/16/two-injured-plane-crash-alcoa/

Can’t find a lot of details. Seems like two injured and transported to the hospital. Deployment of the parachute seems implied, but not clear.

McGhee Tyson (KTYS) is home to the Cirrus delivery and training centers with lots of training activity and is very close to the accident site.
 
I heard the Cirrus was cleared visual, to follow an Airbus. It’s also mentioned, wake from the bus MAY of contributed.
 
Kind of an ominous quote... Hope it was attached to the air-frame and didn't come detached

"Witnesses told WVLT News they saw what looked like a parachute falling from the sky following the crash."
 
Fatal, sounds like a wake encounter from a 320, with a low chute pull. Where I fly out of I get wake turbulence warnings often on landing. I stay one dot or one light above the glide slope and land beyond the 1000 foot touchdown zone. It always feels wrong, but no thanks on wake turbulence, RIP.
 
Are there confirmed fatalities? I had heard two injured and rushed to hospital.
 
Over on Copa, one occupant passed is what they are saying. I saw a fb post of this ac yesterday, they were using a new heads up display, although I seriously doubt that had anything to do with this crash. All unofficial news as far as I know now.
 
So very sad. Charlie was a good person and very enthusiastic about his company and products and about all of General Aviation.
 
I’ve used three of the MGF pilot bags, awesome customer service at that company. I use the bags hard and anytime a zipper failed they sent me another no questions asked.
 
Waiting to hear the parachute debate on this one. Sounds like his first reaction was to pull it.
 
Derald Madson said:
Waiting to hear the parachute debate on this one. Sounds like his first reaction was to pull it.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I think once you're upside down close to the ground it's curtains for all involved; parachute or no. I have to say I far prefer the Salty-type incidents. Bad puns are much more enjoyable than imagining some Kaiser Soze finale for the pilot.
 
Ok, I'm going to do it.

I'm not a parachute hater or Cirri hater. I'm certain it has saved lives. But this event illustrates my problem with the parachute. In the eyes of at least some pilots, it has become a magic escape button and a substitute for stick and rudder skills rather than a tool to be used in APPROPRIATE circumstances.

And by "appropriate", I mean Not Inverted. Now, it could be that this was the only possible action, and there was no chance of flying out of the upset. But the aerobatic pilot in me has a gut feeling that continuing the roll to upright has a better chance of success than deploying a ballistic parachute while inverted at low altitude. And further, rather than continuing to fly the plane through the crash, he panicked and stopped flying the plane to fire the chute.

OTOH, very impressed with the crash worthyness of the airframe.

I'm sure this comment is going to **** some people off; that's not the intent. Just trying to provoke an honest discussion.
 
I don't think it's provocative Ed. The chute is an escape option when the plane is no longer flyable to a landing - that could be due to terrain, MX or the limit of the pilot's abilities. For you, flying it out of an inversion would be possible; perhaps not for the deceased.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Now, it could be that this was the only possible action, and there was no chance of flying out of the upset. But the aerobatic pilot in me has a gut feeling that continuing the roll to upright has a better chance of success than deploying a ballistic parachute while inverted at low altitude.
Click to expand...

What percentage of GA pilots do you reckon have the skills to successfully complete the second half of an aileron roll once inverted on final? My guess is a very small number. I doubt I could manage it, and I used to teach basic aerobatics in Citabrias.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Ok, I'm going to do it.

I'm not a parachute hater or Cirri hater. I'm certain it has saved lives. But this event illustrates my problem with the parachute. In the eyes of at least some pilots, it has become a magic escape button and a substitute for stick and rudder skills rather than a tool to be used in APPROPRIATE circumstances.

And by "appropriate", I mean Not Inverted. Now, it could be that this was the only possible action, and there was no chance of flying out of the upset. But the aerobatic pilot in me has a gut feeling that continuing the roll to upright has a better chance of success than deploying a ballistic parachute while inverted at low altitude. And further, rather than continuing to fly the plane through the crash, he panicked and stopped flying the plane to fire the chute.

OTOH, very impressed with the crash worthyness of the airframe.

I'm sure this comment is going to **** some people off; that's not the intent. Just trying to provoke an honest discussion.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for the report on this one, but in this situation I think they were pretty much doomed, with a small chance of recovery if they responded correctly immediately. The 22 is not an aerobatic aircraft, during training one of the slides they show you is the affect of the wing blocking airflow to the rudder during a spin, versus other aircraft which have much more authority during the spin. It can recover, but my impression is that it would take more altitude than an aero rated aircraft.

For the chute, we are trained on take off to land straight ahead 0 to 600 ft agl (500 for some models), no pull. For 600 to 2000 agl, pull immediately. Above 2,000 assess the situation. Generally they want you to have 2,000 agl hard deck for a pull if something happens at altitude, but if something happens below 2,000 you still pull.

Now for this accident, you have a scenario where he pulled immediately, which is what we are trained to do for an upset like this, rather than try to recover. I really want to see the data recorder data for this one, hopefully it will tell the story. But I have a different scenario for you. From what I've read it may be that he lost control at 1,000 agl, maybe instead of pulling immediately, where he may have been in a roll, but his airspeed probably would have been around 90 knots, he attempted to recover, couldn't get the aircraft under control, and pulled after losing valuable altitude and at a much higher airspeed? I'm hoping that isn't what happened because it probably means the chute would have worked.


More importantly though, is the question of how he got himself into the vortex of a heavy aircraft, especially while doing pattern work? I fly out of an airport where there is a lot of jet traffic, most of it corporate traffic, although some big corporate jets regularly fly there. There are also large jets, like 757s, large military transports and what not.

So I pretty regularly get a clearance to land, follow the jet, caution wake turbulence. I wouldn't say I'm nonchalent about it, but this accident did shake me a little. What I generally do is fly the visual with 3 or 4 whites and land beyond the 1,000 foot marker if I didn't see where they landed. Sometimes I sink below where I want to be, or land short of the 1,000 foot marker, because, honestly, it just feels wrong. I've resolved after this to be more vigilant on remaining high on my approach, and landing long, both without fail. Anything bigger than a medium corporate jet, I'll tell the controller I want at least a few minutes separation too.
 
PaulS said:
I'm waiting for the report on this one, but in this situation I think they were pretty much doomed, with a small chance of recovery if they responded correctly immediately. The 22 is not an aerobatic aircraft, during training one of the slides they show you is the affect of the wing blocking airflow to the rudder during a spin, versus other aircraft which have much more authority during the spin. It can recover, but my impression is that it would take more altitude than an aero rated aircraft.

For the chute, we are trained on take off to land straight ahead 0 to 600 ft agl (500 for some models), no pull. For 600 to 2000 agl, pull immediately. Above 2,000 assess the situation. Generally they want you to have 2,000 agl hard deck for a pull if something happens at altitude, but if something happens below 2,000 you still pull.

Now for this accident, you have a scenario where he pulled immediately, which is what we are trained to do for an upset like this, rather than try to recover. I really want to see the data recorder data for this one, hopefully it will tell the story. But I have a different scenario for you. From what I've read it may be that he lost control at 1,000 agl, maybe instead of pulling immediately, where he may have been in a roll, but his airspeed probably would have been around 90 knots, he attempted to recover, couldn't get the aircraft under control, and pulled after losing valuable altitude and at a much higher airspeed? I'm hoping that isn't what happened because it probably means the chute would have worked.


More importantly though, is the question of how he got himself into the vortex of a heavy aircraft, especially while doing pattern work? I fly out of an airport where there is a lot of jet traffic, most of it corporate traffic, although some big corporate jets regularly fly there. There are also large jets, like 757s, large military transports and what not.

So I pretty regularly get a clearance to land, follow the jet, caution wake turbulence. I wouldn't say I'm nonchalent about it, but this accident did shake me a little. What I generally do is fly the visual with 3 or 4 whites and land beyond the 1,000 foot marker if I didn't see where they landed. Sometimes I sink below where I want to be, or land short of the 1,000 foot marker, because, honestly, it just feels wrong. I've resolved after this to be more vigilant on remaining high on my approach, and landing long, both without fail. Anything bigger than a medium corporate jet, I'll tell the controller I want at least a few minutes separation too.
Click to expand...
Same. Mostly regional and business jets here with just the occasional 737, but it certainly makes you think. The article said he was 1.8 miles in trail; that seems real close. OTOH, if ATC told me to turn final and follow traffic, I would've probably done the exact same thing.

I wonder if the chute didn't work because the rocket fired DOWN, or at best sideways, so the chute didn't have time to inflate despite him being above 600'. Seems like rolling the plane back right side up was the only chance, and that's a tall order. This was one of those situations that required superior judgement, because superior skills may not have been enough. I'm honestly impressed he had the presence of mind and ability to pull the handle while being tossed around that severely.
 
If I'm remembering right (it was a long time ago), when we rolled the Citabria we pitched up 20* or so, rolled the plane, and even then, at the end of the roll we were pitched down. So, a plane on final, already nose down, gets rolled, even if they got it rolled all the way around, I'd think it would be pointed pretty much right at the ground at the end of the roll. :(
 
PaulS said:
I'm waiting for the report on this one, but in this situation I think they were pretty much doomed, with a small chance of recovery if they responded correctly immediately. The 22 is not an aerobatic aircraft, during training one of the slides they show you is the affect of the wing blocking airflow to the rudder during a spin, versus other aircraft which have much more authority during the spin. It can recover, but my impression is that it would take more altitude than an aero rated aircraft.

For the chute, we are trained on take off to land straight ahead 0 to 600 ft agl (500 for some models), no pull. For 600 to 2000 agl, pull immediately. Above 2,000 assess the situation. Generally they want you to have 2,000 agl hard deck for a pull if something happens at altitude, but if something happens below 2,000 you still pull.

Now for this accident, you have a scenario where he pulled immediately, which is what we are trained to do for an upset like this, rather than try to recover. I really want to see the data recorder data for this one, hopefully it will tell the story. But I have a different scenario for you. From what I've read it may be that he lost control at 1,000 agl, maybe instead of pulling immediately, where he may have been in a roll, but his airspeed probably would have been around 90 knots, he attempted to recover, couldn't get the aircraft under control, and pulled after losing valuable altitude and at a much higher airspeed? I'm hoping that isn't what happened because it probably means the chute would have worked.


More importantly though, is the question of how he got himself into the vortex of a heavy aircraft, especially while doing pattern work? I fly out of an airport where there is a lot of jet traffic, most of it corporate traffic, although some big corporate jets regularly fly there. There are also large jets, like 757s, large military transports and what not.

So I pretty regularly get a clearance to land, follow the jet, caution wake turbulence. I wouldn't say I'm nonchalent about it, but this accident did shake me a little. What I generally do is fly the visual with 3 or 4 whites and land beyond the 1,000 foot marker if I didn't see where they landed. Sometimes I sink below where I want to be, or land short of the 1,000 foot marker, because, honestly, it just feels wrong. I've resolved after this to be more vigilant on remaining high on my approach, and landing long, both without fail. Anything bigger than a medium corporate jet, I'll tell the controller I want at least a few minutes separation too.
Click to expand...

To me wake turbulence accidents are like high DA accidents. Pilots get complacent because they’ve been in similar situations before and no issues. But, have they really been in situations were they were at the limits of DA performance or have they actually flown through another larger aircraft wake and got rocked? Probably not. Until a pilot experiences it first hand, the danger of the situation doesn’t hold much weight. It’s in the back of their minds, but they’re not actively flying based on wake avoidance.

Like this guy. Encountering wake turbulence was probably the last thing on his mind.

 
FastEddieB said:
ATC audio with Flight Simulator reenactment:

Click to expand...
Is that an actual photo of the accident aircraft? Not a sim shot? I don't see the parachute harness channels ripped open on the fuselage.
 
Derald Madson said:
Waiting to hear the parachute debate on this one. Sounds like his first reaction was to pull it.
Click to expand...
There’s no debate. When you find yourself in an unmanageable situation, you manage the best you can. Was the plane at sufficient altitude and a proper attitude for a chute deployment to save him? Not likely. Did he have a good alternative solution to the situation? Not in my opinion. But I wasn’t there. Plus I am not a Kirby Chambliss level skilled pilot.

What would have been your solution or first action?
 
Ed Haywood said:
But the aerobatic pilot in me has a gut feeling that continuing the roll to upright has a better chance of success than deploying a ballistic parachute while inverted at low altitude. And further, rather than continuing to fly the plane through the crash, he panicked and stopped flying the plane to fire the chute.
Click to expand...

I'm scheduled for UPRT this coming weekend. I have heard it emphasized that when the plane goes inverted that the pilot needs to unload the wing (push), roll the plane upright, power as needed, and recover to level flight. Easy to say but I need the actual experience of doing so to get the sight picture, gain some muscle memory, learn how I will react to this situation and what I must do to not only avoid it but to handle it if/when it happens.

At my age I might scream like a girl, toss my cookies, or do both but I feel it can only improve on my skill level.

I can't judge this pilot and what he did or should have done. But the passenger was heroic in attempting to save the pilot's life. Sad story 8~(
 
Daleandee said:
I'm scheduled for UPRT this coming weekend. I have heard it emphasized that when the plane goes inverted that the pilot needs to unload the wing (push), roll the plane upright, power as needed, and recover to level flight. Easy to say but I need the actual experience of doing so to get the sight picture, gain some muscle memory, learn how I will react to this situation and what I must do to not only avoid it but to handle it if/when it happens.

At my age I might scream like a girl, toss my cookies, or do both but I feel it can only improve on my skill level.

I can't judge this pilot and what he did or should have done. But the passenger was heroic in attempting to save the pilot's life. Sad story 8~(
Click to expand...
I did that training, it was good stuff. Make sure you do a bunch of spins too.
 
There is a fairly thriving market for unusual attitude / upset recovery training. I have never taken UPRT but presumably this is one of the situations they teach how to deal with.

It does not take Kirby Chambliss skills or Extra 300SC performance to roll upright. Given sufficient altitude, all it takes is an hour or two of instruction on what to do and what not to do.

The kicker of course is the phrase "sufficient altitude." Down at a few hundred feet, it would take a competent aerobatic pilot to recover, because you are going to have to do some non-intuitive things. Up at 1000 feet, I think most pilots could recover, especially if they previously had tried it a few times in a training environment.
 
One of the articles cited here said he was practicing instrument approaches. If so he was a likely on the glide slope where his instruments told him to be. Airliner was probably using the same patch of air. Real pity, too.
 
Jim K said:
Same. Mostly regional and business jets here with just the occasional 737, but it certainly makes you think. The article said he was 1.8 miles in trail; that seems real close. OTOH, if ATC told me to turn final and follow traffic, I would've probably done the exact same thing.

I wonder if the chute didn't work because the rocket fired DOWN, or at best sideways, so the chute didn't have time to inflate despite him being above 600'. Seems like rolling the plane back right side up was the only chance, and that's a tall order. This was one of those situations that required superior judgement, because superior skills may not have been enough. I'm honestly impressed he had the presence of mind and ability to pull the handle while being tossed around that severely.
Click to expand...
ATC did not tell him to turn final. They called the traffic. Pilot reported it in sight. ATC told him to follow the traffic and cleared him. The decision on when to turn and how to follow was the pilots decision.
 
The chute must have done something, as the passenger was still able to pull the pilot from the wreckage. I can't imagine that'd be possible if they hit the ground inverted/out of control.
 
Ed Haywood said:
very impressed with the crash worthyness of the airframe
Click to expand...
they're built pretty tough, solid wing spar, composite roll cage for cabin, most of the crashes you'll see are generally intact (fires notwithstanding), with or without the chute

Ed Haywood said:
And by "appropriate", I mean Not Inverted. Now, it could be that this was the only possible action, and there was no chance of flying out of the upset. But the aerobatic pilot in me has a gut feeling that continuing the roll to upright has a better chance of success than deploying a ballistic parachute while inverted at low altitude. And further, rather than continuing to fly the plane through the crash, he panicked and stopped flying the plane to fire the chute.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree on principle, the perfect pilot wouldn't need a chute, he'd glide any engine failure down to a walkaway landing and overcome wake, ice, hypoxia, etc., and other issues that hit him. But if you look at most piston GA accidents, and the typical skill level of the average 50-150hr/yr GA pilot the chute is a good 'get out of jail' card. A good driver doesn't need ABS, but most people aren't good drivers.. the last several GA crashes seemed entirely preventable - an extra tool in the bag doesn't hurt

Ed Haywood said:
it would take a competent aerobatic pilot to recover
Click to expand...
..sort of goes to the point above


My Cirrus days are largely over (thanks twins!) but the chute was a great peace of mind for people flying with me.. mostly for the irrational fear of what if something happened to me. They all had the pattern memorized for a chute pull sequence. But I prefer what a second engine brings me..
 
Wake turbulence incidents/accidents are not limited to light GA aircraft. I was flying out of KSNA back in 1994 when this accident involving a Westwind 1124A due to wake turbulence happened:
https://www.accidents.app/summaries/accident/20001211X13867
The wake turbulence that a 757 generates was more closely analyzed after this accident and it was reclassified due to the strength of it wake turbulence. If wake turbulence can cause trouble for a Bizjet, we need to really follow the book and not get lax in our ADM. https://www.accidents.app/summaries/accident/20001211X13867
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top