Crash in Bolingbrook

Bruce says it's because they're "frangible."

hindsight2020 said:
Why are Cirrus so flammable again? I suppose the fuel cavities (can't really call those things 'tanks'...) were designed by a guy who thought he got a job at a cluster bomb unit plant, but is there something specifically flammable about the chemistry of disintegrating glass and epoxy that triggers that instant inferno? I thought fiber-reinforced composites were fire-resistant...
Click to expand...
 
When the tanks rupture and the fuel sprays out through the splintered shards of the wreckage it gets atomized quite nicely, when that comes into contact with the hot exhaust, ignition ensues. At those temperatures "fire resistant" is a very short lived feature.
 
wabower said:
It sounds like you already know the numbers as well as the performance that results. Your situation is a classic example standardization deficiencies within GA. CFI's don't know or care, so students don't learn what they need to know to avoid the traps.
Click to expand...
Compared to some types of training the are a lot more checks and balances in flying, however, that still does not account for individual preferences and habits. I spend more time on educating myself about flying, and refining and reinforcing what I do right, and trying to change what I do wrong, than I do for any other activity in my life. I am presently in the 500 hr trap and have what I would like to consider a healthy fear of flying, and plan on making the 1000 hr mark and beyond with no scratches(well except the one I get on my head occasionally from hitting the flaps on my preflight).
 
douglas393 said:
Compared to some types of training the are a lot more checks and balances in flying, however, that still does not account for individual preferences and habits. I spend more time on educating myself about flying, and refining and reinforcing what I do right, and trying to change what I do wrong, than I do for any other activity in my life. I am presently in the 500 hr trap and have what I would like to consider a healthy fear of flying, and plan on making the 1000 hr mark and beyond with no scratches(well except the one I get on my head occasionally from hitting the flaps on my preflight).
Click to expand...

That sir..... Is a VERY good concept to have..:thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
Slit a piece of foam pipe insulation or pool toy foam and slide on the trailing edge.

douglas393 said:
Compared to some types of training the are a lot more checks and balances in flying, however, that still does not account for individual preferences and habits. I spend more time on educating myself about flying, and refining and reinforcing what I do right, and trying to change what I do wrong, than I do for any other activity in my life. I am presently in the 500 hr trap and have what I would like to consider a healthy fear of flying, and plan on making the 1000 hr mark and beyond with no scratches(well except the one I get on my head occasionally from hitting the flaps on my preflight).
Click to expand...
 
I heard on news it was a Doctor from Kentucky and his wife. Second doctor in a year that I heard crashed one and died (other was in St. Louis area). I was going to get checked out on a Cirrus, but now I don't know.
 
asgcpa said:
I heard on news it was a Doctor from Kentucky and his wife. Second doctor in a year that I heard crashed one and died (other was in St. Louis area). I was going to get checked out on a Cirrus, but now I don't know.
Click to expand...

By that logic you wouldn't fly anything, people have died in all the planes we fly. :(
 
masloki said:
Well, my home airport has a 2800x38' runway with a displaced threshold on one end so go-arounds were emphasized in my training. I am junior enough that I won't call it "practice" when I make the call to go-around. I call it ADM.
Click to expand...

Howdy neighbor.

And Joe the CFI gets his 172 turned off at the first taxiway about 800 feet from the close end.
 
I checked out in a 2014 SR22 last week. I don't plan on flying it after the checkout, but wanted to do it for the experience.

The plane is forgiving in a stall, with a small but noticeable buffet occurring before the stall.

But there is one characteristic of the Cirrus that I think plays a part in accidents like this. The airplane has heavy control springs and the controls are well tuned. This means that the control feel does not change as dramatically from cruise speed to slow flight speeds when compared to other GA planes (mooneys, cessnas pipers...)

As far as numbers go, I was making good, short landings with 80 on final and probably 70 over the numbers (I was not really looking). Plane had half fuel and two people.
 
Last edited:
Bill Jennings said:
By that logic you wouldn't fly anything, people have died in all the planes we fly. :(
Click to expand...

No Bill, just won't fly planes that may be beyond my personal minimums at this time. I know my limits....and perhaps at this point in my flying life the Cirrus is beyond me. But maybe in the future when I am more experienced....

I do ride a motorcycle though :D
 
masloki said:
Sad news for the family and the community. I hope he pulls through.

For stories like these, it reminds me to remain proficient. I have a flight with my family this weekend, and that is why I am flying solo tonight.
Click to expand...

Way to go Dana....we'll chat when you come back.:yes:
 
asgcpa said:
No Bill, just won't fly planes that may be beyond my personal minimums at this time. I know my limits....and perhaps at this point in my flying life the Cirrus is beyond me. But maybe in the future when I am more experienced....

I do ride a motorcycle though :D
Click to expand...

Understand about skills and limits! I ride bikes too, great fun.
 
Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover. Thankful for my big rudder, center stick, mushy controls when slow, docile stall characteristics and 260 HP.

RIP.
 
RV10flyer said:
Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover. Thankful for my big rudder, center stick, mushy controls when slow, docile stall characteristics and 260 HP.

RIP.
Click to expand...

Completely untrue, I have recovered the 22 just fine with normal counter spin inputs. The reality is it's almost impossible to get the 22 into a spin without actively trying to do so. Stalling into a nose down spiral is not a spin.
 
bbchien said:
I'm quietly waiting for the Cirri three to report to this string.....

....no tanks you very much.....
Click to expand...

I'm really surprised that Cirrus hasn't come out with a bladder yet, it would be an easy retrofit. Heck, it would probably be a profitable STC for someone to develop.

If they were truly frangible it probably wouldn't be so bad, it's the splinter mode of destruction that creates the atomizing sieve.
 
Last edited:
RV10flyer said:
Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover. Thankful for my big rudder, center stick, mushy controls when slow, docile stall characteristics and 260 HP.

RIP.
Click to expand...
Once writing nonsense and quoted by others, it is virtually impossible to recover when post is read by people who have actually flown the plane in question.
 
Henning said:
I'm really surprised that Cirrus hasn't come out with a bladder yet, it would be an easy retrofit. Heck, it would probably be a profitable STC for someone to develop.

If they were truly frangible it probably wouldn't be so bad, it's the splinter mode of destruction that creates the atomizing sieve.
Click to expand...

Yup. It would solidify the Cirrus as the best GA airplane currently on market.
 
DavidWhite said:
Yup. It would solidify the Cirrus as the best GA airplane currently on market.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling they don't do it because it would be admitting to a fault to which they could be held liable in wrongful death claims. If it bursts into flames in an un survivable impact, that doesn't bother me. However this is not the first Cirrus that has had the occupant survive the impact only to die of immolation, and that isn't good. I'm also surprised that the NTSB hasn't come out on this, it's really not acceptable.
 
RV10flyer said:
Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover.
Click to expand...

Is this based on your personal experience?


Just because an aircraft has a relatively small rudder does not mean you can't recover from a spin.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Completely untrue, I have recovered the 22 just fine with normal counter spin inputs. The reality is it's almost impossible to get the 22 into a spin without actively trying to do so. Stalling into a nose down spiral is not a spin.
Click to expand...

Being in level flight at 3000 agl, engine at idle, prepared for wing drop, makes recovery much quicker. No surprise.

At high AOA, with little control feedback, full power while at 500' different story. Maybe I should have added "below 1000'" is unrecoverable 80% of the time.
 
Henning said:
I have a feeling they don't do it because it would be admitting to a fault to which they could be held liable in wrongful death claims. If it bursts into flames in an un survivable impact, that doesn't bother me. However this is not the first Cirrus that has had the occupant survive the impact only to die of immolation, and that isn't good. I'm also surprised that the NTSB hasn't come out on this, it's really not acceptable.
Click to expand...
Are you really. I believe you were complaining in another thread that the government is controlled in part by the insurance companies. Imagine the hit the insurance companies would get if this would occur.
 
RV10flyer said:
Being in level flight at 3000 agl, engine at idle, prepared for wing drop, makes recovery much quicker. No surprise.

At high AOA, with little control feedback, full power while at 500' different story. Maybe I should have added "below 1000'" is unrecoverable 80% of the time.
Click to expand...

No, you don't understand, have you tried to spin a Cirrus yet? If you let the plane stall, it will not go into a spin. If you are high power, high deck angle, uncoordinated and let the plane stall of its own accord, it will not go into a spin, it wil drop the wing and go into a spiral. In order to get it to spin, about 5-10kts above stall speed, you have to yank back and stomp left rudder and hold that to get it to spin. From a power off situation, I couldn't get it to spin, just drop the nose and turn.

Most people without spin training and some practice couldn't recover any airplane in a spin below 1000', hell, most planes won't even develop a full spin for the first 2 turns which eats up 500'.

Because you fly an RV, don't believe you are immune from these accidents, the Jackson Hole thread is a prime example, and it wasn't the airplane that killed them, it was the pilot.
 
Henning said:
I have a feeling they don't do it because it would be admitting to a fault to which they could be held liable in wrongful death claims. If it bursts into flames in an un survivable impact, that doesn't bother me. However this is not the first Cirrus that has had the occupant survive the impact only to die of immolation, and that isn't good. I'm also surprised that the NTSB hasn't come out on this, it's really not acceptable.
Click to expand...

I heard that the new G5 SR22 that was introduced this year has integral fuel tanks now - Can't find anything to back that up, though.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I heard that the new G5 SR22 that was introduced this year has integral fuel tanks now - Can't find anything to back that up, though.
Click to expand...

:confused: integral to what? As opposed to what? What else is a wet wing besides a fuel tank integral to the wing? If they say integral fuel cell that would mean something more.
 
Man the thought of someone burning to death sends chills down my spine guys. I guess it's all part of the passion right?
 
LJS1993 said:
Man the thought of someone burning to death sends chills down my spine guys. I guess it's all part of the passion right?
Click to expand...

No, it's not, being burned to death in an otherwise survivable accident in this day and age is an engineering and design failure. It's why I won't fly the early Pawnees unless they've been retrofitted with the D model wings and use those fuel tanks rather than the nose.
 
Henning said:
No, it's not, being burned to death in an otherwise survivable accident in this day and age is an engineering and design failure. It's why I won't fly the early Pawnees unless they've been retrofitted with the D model wings and use those fuel tanks rather than the nose.
Click to expand...

Where are the lawsuits? If this is indeed an issue Cirrus better get their act together because eventually it will catch up with them.
 
LJS1993 said:
Where are the lawsuits? If this is indeed an issue Cirrus better get their act together because eventually it will catch up with them.
Click to expand...

That's a good question, see if you can find an answer.
 
Henning said:
That's a good question, see if you can find an answer.
Click to expand...

I'm just one man Henning and not even a pilot to boot. I guess many consider incidents like this just "part of the risk" I guess. I don't know man I just think something that should be truly enjoyable and fun shouldn't end up with this type of result. I will follow this one though like many of you guys and see what occurs.
 
Last edited:
LJS1993 said:
I'm just one man Henning and not even a pilot to boot. I guess many consider incidents like this just "part of the risk" I guess. I don't know man I just think something that should be truly enjoyable and fun shouldn't end up with this type of result. I will follow this one though like many of you guys and see what occurs.
Click to expand...

There is always a risk but you can minimize it by staying proficient and not screwing up. I don't think there was a single accident in cirrus' history where the pilot did everything perfectly right and the aircraft still caught fire. They usually catch fire if the pilot does a set of specific mistakes in the proper order at the proper altitude....but I guess that describes most crashes. So anyways I think that the tendency to catch fire after a crash is a major problem in Cirrus' construction, however I am willing to overlook that problem because the pilot can prevent it.
 
Henning said:
:confused: integral to what? As opposed to what? What else is a wet wing besides a fuel tank integral to the wing? If they say integral fuel cell that would mean something more.
Click to expand...

Sorry for my lack of clarity.

I can't remember whether they were metal tanks or rubber bladders, but someone on here said that actual tanks were added to the G5 when it came out. I simply can't find a reliable reference for that at the moment. (I did back at the time, though... AvWeb maybe)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Sorry for my lack of clarity.

I can't remember whether they were metal tanks or rubber bladders, but someone on here said that actual tanks were added to the G5 when it came out. I simply can't find a reliable reference for that at the moment. (I did back at the time, though... AvWeb maybe)
Click to expand...

A good bladder would be a good thing, a metal tank would work as well. The question then becomes, will it be retrofittable to previous models, or will they use the Apple marketing strategy of coming out with a feature they should have always had to get people to buy a new one.
 
Henning said:
A good bladder would be a good thing, a metal tank would work as well. The question then becomes, will it be retrofittable to previous models, or will they use the Apple marketing strategy of coming out with a feature they should have always had to get people to buy a new one.
Click to expand...

Just think of the marketing angle they can use!!! "Would you like to burn to death in your current model or be better protected in a new model"

:D
 
Even Cirrus seems to be a bit confused about their safety record. Yesterday I received a glossy fold-over invitation to the "Introduction of Generation 5" in Dallas on Oct 14 (FYI if any AOPA attendees are interested.)

In a list of bullet points they mention that 72 lives have been saved by the chute system. In the "Inside Cirrus 2013" they attribute 65 lives saved by the chute system. My assmption is that 7 otherwise dead people are walking around not knowing why they are still among the living.

No reference is included to the number of occupants they have fried with the design of the fuel system or whether it has been modified in the latest version.

If anybody is curious they are welcome to use my invitation to attend the dog and pony show and ask them.

In any event, this tragic wreck and the somewhat predictable "fry baby fry" outcome sheds a somewhat different light on GhiaBob's theory about safety in populated areas.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top