Crash in Bolingbrook

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...

Then your choice of planes is severely limited. A father and son died of burns in an otherwise survivable off field landing in Georgia. They were in a 172. You also eliminate a lot if not all of the large jets. Just look at the Asiana crash in San Francisco. The passengers got off but the plane burned. There are numerous airline crashes where passengers survived but either burned to death or succumbed to smoke and fumes.

The fact is that planes carry a lot of fuel and they will burn.

I do think there are designs that improve things. I like what Diamond does. Here are my favorites:

1) Place tanks between two wing spars. That puts them in the strongest, most protected position. I think this is much more important than the composite vs. aluminum argument.
2) Use composites for the outer skin since that is generally stronger.
3) Use a separate inner container that is deformable. With the outer skin and spar reducing the forces to a large extent the idea is to maintain integrity.
4) Pay attention to fuel lines so that deformations don't compromise integrity unless the deformations are large.

I think Diamond is the best at this. Cirrus has an additional consideration in that they must protect some of the inner area so that, when coming down under canopy, ground impact doesn't cause a fuel leak. For that reason there isn't any fuel carried in the area where the wheels can be bent into the wing. That's why there has never been a post impact fire when coming down under canopy but it makes for other compromises. Unfortunately, Cirrus doesn't meet several of the items I listed above. But... that applies to a lot of aircraft.

There has been at least one death by post impact fire in a Diamond so I disagree that preventing them is a simple engineering issue. The odds can be reduced but not taken to zero.
 
LJS1993 said:
You know gents it's looking like if you have the cash Diamond is the way to go.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Diamonds are well built. In General the Cirrus is a just fine plane with better speed than the Diamond, the only qualm I have with them is fuel retention in survivable impacts. The issue I have with Diamonds is that refilling a Gatorade jug in flight is a difficult proposition with the center stick and fixed seat position (not to mention their seats aren't particularly comfortable) and that has a higher day to day impact on me. Every plane is a trade off....
 
I know people hate data. It challenges their position and makes for less fun arguing. Here is an interesting graph. Disclaimer: Graph is from Why Cirrus website but it is based on data rather than speculation. It was done by doing a search of NTSB data on "post crash fire". I did a similar search but used "thermal injuries" to look for people who died of burns. Because that only shows up in the factual report (not preliminary) it misses more recent accidents but it was still interesting including a bad period for the 206.

Post%20Crash%20Fires%20by%20Type%20(2007%20to%202011).png
 
Interesting where you've got your Diamond info

I can think of only two crashes where there was a fire - one in the US where the dry grass caught on fire from the hot exhaust, and the recent one up in the Andes, which did end up burning up completely
 
Paul, it's not fire that is the primary concern. When you analyze that data with more scrutiny than just "had a fire" is where you start seeing the problems. The Meridian I would expect to have more fires in crashes because it is the highest energy aircraft (heaviest, and carrying the most fuel along with having a turbine which has more very hot bits and open flame potential for ignition). The thing is those crashes would not have been survivable regardless the fire. My issue with the Cirri is that there have been several accidents now of sufficiently low energy where the occupants survived the impact and were immolated in the ensuing fire, this last accident being such a case. I don't mind being auto cremated after I'm dead, I'm not so fond of the idea of being cremated while still alive.
 
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...

From what I understand I don't want any part of spinning my 201 either.
 
Maybe that's why I don't get any calls about them.

I don't keep a record, but typically get a phone call or two on most days about some type of aviation-related project involving acquisition, consulting, appraisal, financial, taxation, budgeting, deal structure, expert witness and the other stuff we do that surrounds these issues. Most of the calls involve some kind of airplane that's either owned or desired.

I don't know how long Diamond has been making airplanes but can't remember a single question about them--ever. But then I don't get many about Bellanca's either.

Henning said:
Getting somewhere slowly.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Maybe that's why I don't get any calls about them.

I don't keep a record, but typically get a phone call or two on most days about some type of aviation-related project involving acquisition, consulting, appraisal, financial, taxation, budgeting, deal structure, expert witness and the other stuff we do that surrounds these issues. Most of the calls involve some kind of airplane that's either owned or desired.

I don't know how long Diamond has been making airplanes but can't remember a single question about them--ever. But then I don't get many about Bellanca's either.
Click to expand...

They don't fall in that price range, and are not used as business aircraft. I doubt you get many calls about C-152/172s and Piper Archers either. When the D-Jet finally hits the market, you'll probably get some calls. Diamond has been producing planes for over 20 years, they started with gliders in Austria IIRC.
 
So in your wisdom that's the way to go, right? Does the market support your theory? Would a majority of pilots say that wierd-looking is a better definition than cool?

LJS1993 said:
Well let's see. Newer technology, solid service record, has moderate cool factor, why not?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
So in your wisdom that's the way to go, right? Does the market support your theory? Would a majority of pilots say that wierd-looking is a better definition than cool?
Click to expand...

Well let me see here. The market doesn't support my theory for sure. However let's take the car industry for one second. Volvo is renowned for their excellent safety and durability yet does the market necessarily reflect that? As for pilots, it's all personal choice in terms of cool factor. Some guys think old 1950's Cessna's are the definition of cool while others think Lancair is the ultimate in cool. So cool factor is purely relative I guess.
 
No further questions. Pass the witness.

LJS1993 said:
Well let me see here. The market doesn't support my theory for sure. However let's take the car industry for one second. Volvo is renowned for their excellent safety and durability yet does the market necessarily reflect that? As for pilots, it's all personal choice in terms of cool factor. Some guys think old 1950's Cessna's are the definition of cool while others think Lancair is the ultimate in cool. So cool factor is purely relative I guess.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
So in your wisdom that's the way to go, right? Does the market support your theory? Would a majority of pilots say that wierd-looking is a better definition than cool?
Click to expand...

Weirder looking is cool in this case if you are looking for efficiency. Traditional tapered fuselages create more drag.
 
Yeah, Flightaware tracks show that it's a real burner.

Henning said:
Weirder looking is cool in this case if you are looking for efficiency. Traditional tapered fuselages create more drag.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Yeah, Flightaware tracks show that it's a real burner.
Click to expand...

Does better than most 180hp planes, but yeah, not fast mostly due to the glider wings. I was getting around 130kts on 6.5 gph on the one I used to fly. The DA-20 is actually the most impressive for speed efficiency, you get 125 on 4.5.
 
wabower said:
No further questions. Pass the witness.
Click to expand...

Well I think they look pretty "cool" but who knows? I think the 337 and the OV-10 are very cool. I'm just a weird guy when it comes to the planes I think look cool I guess.
 
Last edited:
So noted. ;)

LJS1993 said:
Well I think they look pretty "cool" but who knows? I think the 337 and the OV-10 are very cool. I'm just a weird guy when it comes to the planes I think look cool I guess.
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
Does better than most 180hp planes, but yeah, not fast mostly due to the glider wings. I was getting around 130kts on 6.5 gph on the one I used to fly. The DA-20 is actually the most impressive for speed efficiency, you get 125 on 4.5.
Click to expand...

I could get 140 KTAS on 8.5 up high (8-10K). Put the wheel pants on and get a little more speed. The big speed mod on the DA-40 is the type of prop.
 
I'll certainly buy that greater energy means less survivability. An interesting plot is landing kinetic energy vs. the percentage of accidents that are fatal. Gee, fatality percentage goes up with landing kinetic energy. A straight line is a pretty good fit.

However, you ignored the fact that even the venerable 172 has survivable accidents where people die from burns.

Here is a bit of a morbid thought. Increase fuselage strength, add four point belts and airbags, and make the interior more crash friendly like modern cars. Assume chance of fire stays the same i.e. rest of design is unchanged. You have upped the chance of surviving the crash. Have you now moved survivability more into the area where impact is violent enough to cause a fire?



Henning said:
Paul, it's not fire that is the primary concern. When you analyze that data with more scrutiny than just "had a fire" is where you start seeing the problems. The Meridian I would expect to have more fires in crashes because it is the highest energy aircraft (heaviest, and carrying the most fuel along with having a turbine which has more very hot bits and open flame potential for ignition). The thing is those crashes would not have been survivable regardless the fire. My issue with the Cirri is that there have been several accidents now of sufficiently low energy where the occupants survived the impact and were immolated in the ensuing fire, this last accident being such a case. I don't mind being auto cremated after I'm dead, I'm not so fond of the idea of being cremated while still alive.
Click to expand...
 
peppy said:
I'll certainly buy that greater energy means less survivability. An interesting plot is landing kinetic energy vs. the percentage of accidents that are fatal. Gee, fatality percentage goes up with landing kinetic energy. A straight line is a pretty good fit.

However, you ignored the fact that even the venerable 172 has survivable accidents where people die from burns.

Here is a bit of a morbid thought. Increase fuselage strength, add four point belts and airbags, and make the interior more crash friendly like modern cars. Assume chance of fire stays the same i.e. rest of design is unchanged. You have upped the chance of surviving the crash. Have you now moved survivability more into the area where impact is violent enough to cause a fire?
Click to expand...

I'm using straight Gs for survivability, 50Gs is "L/D 50" so to speak and 100Gs is 100% unsurvivable. This is regardless of other injuries and intrusions, this is where your aorta tears off strictly from Gs.
 
bbchien said:
I'm quietly waiting for the Cirri three to report to this string.....

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

And we are waiting for that guy who started this whole Cirrus fire concept by misreading data to include brake fires to step up and correct everyone.

Now who was that...... It will come to me.....
 
Sailer said:
And we are waiting for that guy who started this whole Cirrus fire concept by misreading data to include brake fires to step up and correct everyone.

Now who was that...... It will come to me.....
Click to expand...

Did this look like a brake fire? Did a man, and quite possibly a woman, not survive a crash to die of fire?
 
Henning said:
Did this look like a brake fire? Did a man, and quite possibly a woman, not survive a crash to die of fire?
Click to expand...

This concerned the hysteria that has been ongoing over the last many years on the red board. But I think you knew that before you posted.

This accident now makes two where someone died from fire in a Cirrus since it was developed. Both seem to be stall spin accidents. While none would be much better, this does not rise to the level of concern seen on these boards.
 
The DA40 is a safer more fun to fly plane with about the same capability as an SR20. Maybe the more fun part is subjective but the rest is fact. The SR22 is in a different league as far as capability goes and you can't really compare them to either the SR20 or DA40. As pointed out, what matters is a post crash fire that would have otherwise been a survivable accident. You won't find one of these for a DA40.

And while I'm not a CFI, I can't imagine there are many people on this planet that have filled more gatorade bottles in a DA40 than I have and I'm happy to give lessons. Like most things in aviation, a little stick and rudder skills is all it takes as you long as you remember to keep flying the plane.
 
Henning said:
Did this look like a brake fire? Did a man, and quite possibly a woman, not survive a crash to die of fire?
Click to expand...

The issue is the "flaming death trap" hysteria regarding Cirrus. Yes, this was a horrible accident. The question is whether it is more likely in a Cirrus than other aircraft. Before I present data some caveats. Only factual reports include the term "thermal injuries" that says death was caused by fire. In the case of Cirrus I know of two cases this will miss. However, that is true for all makes. Secondly, I have made no attempt to normalize for flight hours. Because of that I would expect Cessna to be high due to lots of flight hours. The point of the data is to show that the data does not support the idea that Cirrus is somehow a lot worse than other aircraft. You can burn to death in a Cirrus but the same is true of a Cessna or a Beech.

Searching only fatal accidents from 1/1/2000 to 1/1/2013 for the term "thermal injuries" returns the following number of hits:

Beech 13
Cessna 20
Cirrus 0
Diamond 1
Mooney 2
Piper 18

Note that I did not select for particular models so the Beech and Cessna nets were cast very wide.

As examples of a narrower search, for the same time frame:

C206 4
C172 4
C182 0
Beech 35 1
Beech 36 4
Piper 28 5

None of this changes the horrible nature of this accident. Hopefully it puts into perspective.
 
. . . so then the guy asked his wife "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

peppy said:
The issue is the "flaming death trap" hysteria regarding Cirrus. Yes, this was a horrible accident. The question is whether it is more likely in a Cirrus than other aircraft. Before I present data some caveats. Only factual reports include the term "thermal injuries" that says death was caused by fire. In the case of Cirrus I know of two cases this will miss. However, that is true for all makes. Secondly, I have made no attempt to normalize for flight hours. Because of that I would expect Cessna to be high due to lots of flight hours. The point of the data is to show that the data does not support the idea that Cirrus is somehow a lot worse than other aircraft. You can burn to death in a Cirrus but the same is true of a Cessna or a Beech.

Searching only fatal accidents from 1/1/2000 to 1/1/2013 for the term "thermal injuries" returns the following number of hits:

Beech 13
Cessna 20
Cirrus 0
Diamond 1
Mooney 2
Piper 18

Note that I did not select for particular models so the Beech and Cessna nets were cast very wide.

As examples of a narrower search, for the same time frame:

C206 4
C172 4
C182 0
Beech 35 1
Beech 36 4
Piper 28 5

None of this changes the horrible nature of this accident. Hopefully it puts into perspective.
Click to expand...
 
that is really interesting. The piper malibu O2 generator always gave me the willies but I finally decided it was paranoi on my part. I wonder if that is a contributer after all.

peppy said:
I know people hate data. It challenges their position and makes for less fun arguing. Here is an interesting graph. Disclaimer: Graph is from Why Cirrus website but it is based on data rather than speculation. It was done by doing a search of NTSB data on "post crash fire". I did a similar search but used "thermal injuries" to look for people who died of burns. Because that only shows up in the factual report (not preliminary) it misses more recent accidents but it was still interesting including a bad period for the 206.

Post%20Crash%20Fires%20by%20Type%20(2007%20to%202011).png
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
Shatters into small pieces.
Click to expand...

Rather, just easily broken...fragile...as Grant posted.

For example, runway lights are required to be mounted on frangible bases to minimize aircraft damage when struck.

But, I'm confident Wayne was joking. :)
 
JHW said:
that is really interesting. The piper malibu O2 generator always gave me the willies but I finally decided it was paranoi on my part. I wonder if that is a contributer after all.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I suspect kinetic energy at stall is more relevant.
 
wabower said:
So in your wisdom that's the way to go, right? Does the market support your theory? Would a majority of pilots say that wierd-looking is a better definition than cool?
Click to expand...

The diamond does feel like your flying a sperm cell. Albeit with better visibility. ;)
 
peppy said:
There has been at least one death by post impact fire in a Diamond so I disagree that preventing them is a simple engineering issue. The odds can be reduced but not taken to zero.
Click to expand...

When/where? The only post-impact fire I'm aware of in a DA40 was not anywhere close to survivable.
 
Sailer said:
And we are waiting for that guy who started this whole Cirrus fire concept by misreading data to include brake fires to step up and correct everyone
Click to expand...
The correct statistic is "%of the fleet that had an otherwise surviveable death due to post crash fire"

Every time there is one of these, the partisans come out. I've already posted the 223 case review of every cirrus accident. Now someone do that for MOONEY. C'mon, step up and to the work.

None of this "5 year" limitation. Actually read all the reports and put em' out there. I have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top