Cirrus down under chute in NC, right next to house. No injuries.

Kritchlow said:
BS. Engine failure low IFR could lead to a pull. Also structural failure.
Click to expand...


I " think" there was ONE structural failure... Caused by POOR mechanical workmanship at the Cirrus dealer...

I will give you the motor failure excuse though...:redface::redface:
 
bikert said:
Of course it is if you have an emergency. All the big talker cirrus bashers here, I bet if they were in an emergency and had a chute handle to pull they'd be pulling it while sobbing and begging for their mommies under their breath :rofl:

There have been Cirrus pilots who crashed and died without pulling the chute handle. They are the ones who followed the advice of some here.

I do not have a Cirrus, never flown one, but don't understand all the hate.
Click to expand...

This.

The pilot got into a bad situation in which he questioned his ability to safely conclude the flight in a conventional manner. So he pulled the red handle and walked away. There are plenty of dead people who I'm sure wished they had a red handle.
 
rbridges said:
I am not a cirrus hater by any stretch. Besides the costs involved, I think the chute is a wonderful safety feature. I know you can't read the pilot's mind, but I wonder if he would have found a way to get fuel sooner if he didn't have the chute as a plan B. I often wonder if people "push their luck" knowing they have a possible out with the chute.
Click to expand...
Considering an option that inevitably leads to an un-reusable airplane as a "plan B" is so foreign to my way of thinking that I have a hard time believing that it could play a role in anyone's decision making process. But I've never flown a plane with BRS nor been a candidate to own one (and I expect I never will), and human psychology can lead people to think and act in ways that are totally irrational, so I can't rule out the possibility either.
 
Kritchlow said:
I don't like it either, but it *can* be true with some part 23 airplanes.
Click to expand...

I don't think so if loaded and flown properly. At least I've not met a light twin yet that was definitely going to crash and kill all on board if loaded lightly/properly and handled properly when it ate one. Of course any pilot can screw up and botch an emergency, (single or multi-engine), including the two videos above, one of which the pilot pulled back the wrong aka working engine instead of the dead one, leaving him with no engines, until too late to recover. And of course any pilot can overload an airplane so that it cannot perform on one engine and force them to land in a field or wherever is below them, (which is where a single-engine plane is going anyway if it loses an engine). Anyway, sorry, that particular little saying has always bugged me. lol
 
N801BH said:
I " think" there was ONE structural failure... Caused by POOR mechanical workmanship at the Cirrus dealer...

I will give you the motor failure excuse though...:redface::redface:
Click to expand...

What about smacking into turkey vultures at 200 mph:dunno:
 
FlightofTwo said:
I don't think so if loaded and flown properly. At least I've not met a light twin yet that was definitely going to crash and kill all on board if loaded lightly/properly and handled properly when it ate one. Of course any pilot can screw up and botch an emergency, (single or multi-engine), including the two videos above, one of which the pilot pulled back the wrong aka working engine instead of the dead one, leaving him with no engines, until too late to recover. And of course any pilot can overload an airplane so that it cannot perform on one engine and force them to land in a field or wherever is below them, (which is where a single-engine plane is going anyway if it loses an engine). Anyway, sorry, that particular little saying has always bugged me. lol
Click to expand...

I don't think the requirements for an airplane under (6000 lbs??) need to be able to climb SE whatsoever. In addition, I don't believe any part 23 airplane needs to demonstrate the 1.6 net gradient that part 25 airplanes do. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
 
N801BH said:
Wow....
I didn't know a Cirrus smacked a bird and had to pull ??:redface:
Click to expand...

No, that is just a scenario I suspect could warrant a pull w/o it being the fault of a lousy pilot.
 
Clearly this example would be the fault of the pilot for failing to avoid the bird.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
KANNAPOLIS ONE Arrival. Fly CLT 010 radial for 10 miles.... THENCE pull the chute.
 
Kritchlow said:
I don't think the requirements for an airplane under (6000 lbs??) need to be able to climb SE whatsoever. In addition, I don't believe any part 23 airplane needs to demonstrate the 1.6 net gradient that part 25 airplanes do. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
Click to expand...

That is correct. But the point that was made is that with the vast majority of light twins, if properly flown and not overloaded for the conditions, you can still maintain altitude if not a positive rate of climb on a single engine.

Now, losing one during takeoff and continuing like a transport category aircraft is a different story.
 
bikert said:
Meaningless. You can support any hypothesis you want with only one month's worth of data by choosing a convenient month. It just so happens that December 2015 is convenient for your assertion.

Let's rather talk about the number of accidents last year, compared to flying fleet size and the number of serious injuries/fatalities for each. That would be the ultimate data to draw conclusions from. Even so, probably need to look at multiple years for a more accurate view and to see the trends.
Click to expand...

NTSB statistics indicate a fatality rate of 2 per 100,000 flight hours in personal flying. The Cirrus fatal rate has steadily declined and has fell below half the GA personal flying average two years ago, and still seems to be trending lower. We've also seen more CAPS pulls offsetting the fatals.

All GA pilots keep making the same mistakes. The fatality rate overall has been resistant to efforts to promote safety. However, the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association has worked hard to get owners to study the fatals that could have been saved by a timely CAPS pull. Over on the COPA site, you'll read relief that the pilot survived coupled with extensive criticism of his (or her) CDM, training, etc. Like here, some think it sporting to strafe pilots in their chutes. Others take a more constructive approach.

The instant focus is trying to get our membership to do more recurrent training beyond the FAA minimums. Like the Bonanza guys, we offer pilot proficiency two-day ground and flight training courses around the country (and some internationally), as well as CDM courses.

Frustratingly, out of a membership of almost 4,000, we only see 400/year participate in these excellent training courses. Still, many others lurk on our forums and hopefully learn from the accident discussions.

In the instant accident, we don't know why he pulled. ATC was asking about his fuel state and he mis-reported 17 minutes at first, then later clarified gallons. His last report was 12 gallons on board, which was adequate for about another 45 minutes at normal cruise speed.

We do know that he was landing on 36R at Charlotte and then drifted towards 36C after breaking out. They sent him missed and got him set up on an RNAV into Concord that he went missed on, then were vectoring him for an ILS before he pulled. He apparently had 17 gallons at Charlotte.
 
Mark57 said:
We do know that he was landing on 36R at Charlotte and then drifted towards 36C after breaking out. They sent him missed and got him set up on an RNAV into Concord that he went missed on, then were vectoring him for an ILS before he pulled. He apparently had 17 gallons at Charlotte.
Click to expand...

How in the hell do you miss the runway at CLT in that airplane?

You could leave the A/P engaged down to below mins and have no pilot skill whatsoever and still make it.

I asked this earlier and didn't see s response: did he just give up and pull the chute while he still had fuel, or did he do it after the engine quit?
 
Fearless Tower said:
How in the hell do you miss the runway at CLT in that airplane?

You could leave the A/P engaged down to below mins and have no pilot skill whatsoever and still make it.

I asked this earlier and didn't see s response: did he just give up and pull the chute while he still had fuel, or did he do it after the engine quit?
Click to expand...

Someone with local knowledge posted on the COPA site that 36C is concrete, while 36R is bitumen of some sort (i.e. dark). It was low ceilings/viz at the time. It's possible he went visual as soon as he broke out (when he should have stayed on the instruments until DA) and then drove towards the runway he saw, which might have been the brighter runway surface of 36C.

Sounds like he got in over his head at an unfamiliar, busy Class B airport in low IFR conditions. As soon as he deviated, ATC yanked his chain and sent him packing towards another airport.

We don't yet know the immediate circumstances that led to his chute pull. It sounds like he still had 17 gallons at Charlotte and 12 gallons at last report before the pull. He was probably stressed out from the deviation at Charlotte. There was no reported engine trouble, nor did he declare an emergency.

It's possible he ran a tank dry, and panicked rather than switch to the other tank. The fuel selector on that aircraft is R or L but not both. But, again, it's just speculation.
 
Mark57 said:
Someone with local knowledge posted on the COPA site that 36C is concrete, while 36R is bitumen of some sort (i.e. dark). It was low ceilings/viz at the time. It's possible he went visual as soon as he broke out (when he should have stayed on the instruments until DA) and then drove towards the runway he saw, which might have been the brighter runway surface of 36C.

Sounds like he got in over his head at an unfamiliar, busy Class B airport in low IFR conditions. As soon as he deviated, ATC yanked his chain and sent him packing towards another airport.

We don't yet know the immediate circumstances that led to his chute pull. It sounds like he still had 17 gallons at Charlotte and 12 gallons at last report before the pull. He was probably stressed out from the deviation at Charlotte. There was no reported engine trouble, nor did he declare an emergency.

It's possible he ran a tank dry, and panicked rather than switch to the other tank. The fuel selector on that aircraft is R or L but not both. But, again, it's just speculation.
Click to expand...

Yowza... Those runways aren't even close to each other.
 
ChrisK said:
I do not think it has been widely understood that Cirrus changed both their language and approach regarding reusing aircraft after CAPS deployments. Many do fly again.

https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/s...CAPS_Planes_that_Were_Repaired_and_Flew_Again
Click to expand...
Thanks for that info, I did not know that. Still, I can't imagine a vertical landing under a chute not leading to substantial damage requiring extensive (and expen$ive) repairs. Which was really my point: what pilot knowingly puts himself into a position where he might have to shell out, I don't know, say 100 AMU (or more) before his plane would be airworthy again? I can't fathom the mindset, and suspect it largely doesn't exist, but I can't be sure.

I lean more toward the theory that Cirrus pilots, like pilots of every model of high performance plane out there, simply get in over their heads, behind the airplane, and make bad decisions due to not thinking clearly in a highly stressful situation for which they are unprepared. A consequence of inadequate training - though it's good to hear that COPA is doing all they can to encourage recurrent training and proficiency, and that they're having some success.
 
Fearless Tower said:
So, are you saying this guy popped the chute with fuel still onboard and the engine running???
Click to expand...

Possibly. He stated on the ATC recordings that he had like 14 gal after the approach he was "told to abort" (likely due to his inability to do it). Maybe he ran one tank dry and the engine shut off??
 
Mark57 said:
Someone with local knowledge posted on the COPA site that 36C is concrete, while 36R is bitumen of some sort (i.e. dark). It was low ceilings/viz at the time. It's possible he went visual as soon as he broke out (when he should have stayed on the instruments until DA) and then drove towards the runway he saw, which might have been the brighter runway surface of 36C.

Sounds like he got in over his head at an unfamiliar, busy Class B airport in low IFR conditions. As soon as he deviated, ATC yanked his chain and sent him packing towards another airport.
Click to expand...

Here is the weather reported at the time:
KCLT 082052Z 04005KT 10SM OVC007 08/06 A3004 RMK AO2 SLP173 60000 T00780056 56010
KCLT 081952Z 04006KT 10SM OVC007 07/05 A3004 RMK AO2 SLP174 T00720050
KCLT 081852Z 02006KT 10SM OVC005 07/04 A3005 RMK AO2 RAB17E43 SLP175 P0000 T00670044

KJQF 082050Z 01005KT 3SM BR OVC005 07/06 A3008
KJQF 082040Z 34005KT 3SM BR OVC005 07/06 A3008 RMK AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT 7NM-8NM NORTH OF AI

He had 10 miles visibility and 700 overcast the first time--that's the part that makes me shake my head. It was far from poor vis or ceilings. He should have had zero trouble finding a place with 10 miles visibility breaking out at 700', and not much trouble finding a place with 3 miles and 500 feet. That's excellent VFR then legal VFR visibilities... :(
 
FlightofTwo said:
Here is the weather reported at the time:

KCLT 082052Z 04005KT 10SM OVC007 08/06 A3004 RMK AO2 SLP173 60000 T00780056 56010

KCLT 081952Z 04006KT 10SM OVC007 07/05 A3004 RMK AO2 SLP174 T00720050

KCLT 081852Z 02006KT 10SM OVC005 07/04 A3005 RMK AO2 RAB17E43 SLP175 P0000 T00670044



KJQF 082050Z 01005KT 3SM BR OVC005 07/06 A3008

KJQF 082040Z 34005KT 3SM BR OVC005 07/06 A3008 RMK AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT 7NM-8NM NORTH OF AI



He had 10 miles visibility and 700 overcast the first time--that's the part that makes me shake my head. It was far from poor vis or ceilings. He should have had zero trouble finding a place with 10 miles visibility breaking out at 700', and not much trouble finding a place with 3 miles and 500 feet. That's excellent VFR then legal VFR visibilities... :(
Click to expand...

And light winds.

Was CLT his original intended destination? CLT Approach can be challenging if you aren't prepared. I wonder if he got frazzled trying to keep up with the controllers and just blew it.
 
Fearless Tower said:
And light winds.

Was CLT his original intended destination? CLT Approach can be challenging if you aren't prepared. I wonder if he got frazzled trying to keep up with the controllers and just blew it.
Click to expand...

He filed from Erie PA to Charlotte, according to Flight Aware. News reports stated he was on his way to Florida from Canada. Looks like he flew to Erie that morning (I presume to clear US customs) before the leg to Charlotte.
 
FlightofTwo said:
Anyway, sorry, that particular little saying has always bugged me. lol
Click to expand...

Coined either by salesmen who are selling only singles or owners that can't afford to feed a twin!
 
Kritchlow said:
I don't think the requirements for an airplane under (6000 lbs??) need to be able to climb SE whatsoever. In addition, I don't believe any part 23 airplane needs to demonstrate the 1.6 net gradient that part 25 airplanes do. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I'll take +200FPM over -1000FPM any day. :wink2:
 
Originally Posted by Tampico Trauma View Post
Clearly this example would be the fault of the pilot for failing to avoid the bird.


hindsight2020 said:
Is that sarcasm?
Click to expand...

That's what the NTSB report will note!
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Did he even make minimums?.....with a 700' overcast he woulda seen it.:yes:
Click to expand...
From the ATC clip, he said he saw it, but he was drifting towards the center runway where there was a jet in position so the controller sent him around. At that point he had not declared an emergency. There was also confusion about the fuel he had. When the controllers asks "how many minutes?" he replies "17 minutes". Later, in the first ATC clip, he restates that as "17 gallons", which is a big difference.

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/01/real-time-drama-in-the-skies-cont/423420/

Scroll to the bottom of the article where it says "update".
 
The center runway is some distance from the right. I wonder if he was drifting toward the parallel taxiway and thought it was the center runway.
 
Kritchlow said:
The center runway is some distance from the right. I wonder if he was drifting toward the parallel taxiway and thought it was the center runway.
Click to expand...
He was supposed to be landing on the right runway. Who knows what he saw, but the controller was apparently concerned he was aiming for the center.
 
Doesn't all of that fancy avionics paint the yellow (well, magenta) brick road right down to the selected runway?
 
paflyer said:
Doesn't all of that fancy avionics paint the yellow (well, magenta) brick road right down to the selected runway?
Click to expand...
It doesn't do it itself. You need to know how to use it and set it up correctly. I would say the more sophisticated avionics have a steeper learning curve.
 
Kritchlow said:
The center runway is some distance from the right. I wonder if he was drifting toward the parallel taxiway and thought it was the center runway.
Click to expand...

That is a good point. 36C is nowhere near 36R. He would probably would have been dang near full scale deflection on the localizer for the controller to have been concerned about him encroaching on the Center.
 
Everskyward said:
It doesn't do it itself. You need to know how to use it and set it up correctly. I would say the more sophisticated avionics have a steeper learning curve.
Click to expand...

Which is why there is supposed to be a thorough checkout process.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is a good point. 36C is nowhere near 36R. He would probably would have been dang near full scale deflection on the localizer for the controller to have been concerned about him encroaching on the Center.
Click to expand...

If he was visual he may have looked out and seen *a* runway, just not the correct one.
 
Everskyward said:
If he was visual he may have looked out and seen *a* runway, just not the correct one.
Click to expand...

Yes, but he had a right cross-wind no more than 5 kts. If he was so out of whack when he broke out to think that 36C was his runway, he was seriously messed up (and significantly off the localizer).
 
But hell, unless ATC told me to go around, I'd sidestep to the right one. These runways are 9000 +/- long. You could descend from 1000 AGL over the numbers and still have more than enough runway to land and stop.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Yes, but he had a right cross-wind no more than 5 kts. If he was so out of whack when he broke out to think that 36C was his runway, he was seriously messed up (and significantly off the localizer).
Click to expand...
No one said he wasn't messed up. He couldn't manage to set up and/or fly the next two approaches to the other airport either.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Yes, but he had a right cross-wind no more than 5 kts. If he was so out of whack when he broke out to think that 36C was his runway, he was seriously messed up (and significantly off the localizer).
Click to expand...

Yup... Way off. It's probably a mile between runways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top