Fatal Crash at First Flight, 9/28

Kenny Phillips

Final Approach
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
5,612
Display Name

Display name:
Kenny Phillips
Still haven't found details, beyond it being an apparent landing attempt, and "multiple fatalities" and "burst into flame".
Airport closed, of course. I've been there by car, and had wanted to fly in.
 
Appears to be an SR-22, N1281F


FROM NPS:
NEWS RELEASE - Single-engine airplane crashes into woods near Wright Brothers National Memorial’s First Flight Airport; park closed Sunday, September 29

At approximately 5 p.m. today, a single-engine airplane crashed into a wooded area at Wright Brothers National Memorial’s First Flight Airport (FFA).

Additional details
•Eyewitnesses reported that the airplane was attempting to land at the airport.
•Following the crash, a fire ensued that caused the airplane to burn.
•The fire was extinguished by the Kill Devil Hills Fire Department and other local fire departments.
•Multiple passenger fatalities have been confirmed.
•FFA is closed until further notice.
•The National Transportation Safety Board, an independent federal agency charged with investigating civil aviation accidents in the United States, will investigate the incident. The Federal Aviation Administration has also been notified.

Wright Brothers National Memorial will be closed Sunday, Sept. 29, 2024.
 
Fairly benign conditions, southwest winds 15+ mph which aligns nicely with runway 21.
 
... also the shape of the base leg and the acute base-to-final seems unusual to me.
 
... also the shape of the base leg and the acute base-to-final seems unusual to me.
Yeah, but I don't get too excited about not squaring. But - pure speculation and still assuming this is the airplane - the reverse pattern at least suggests a lack of preparation for that leg of the flight.

Another piece: checking the registration, this was a 2023 SR22 which the owner owned purchased this past March :(
 
... also the shape of the base leg and the acute base-to-final seems unusual to me.

Yeah, but I don't get too excited about not squaring. But - pure speculation and still assuming this is the airplane - the reverse pattern at least suggests a lack of preparation for that leg of the flight.

Another piece: checking the registration, this was a 2023 SR22 which the owner owned purchased this past March :(
Speculation, yes, but it reminds me of an article a while back where they dissected the accident history of the Cirrus vs. the Bo. They went into a lot of detail about the use of autopilot, coupled approaches and the capabilities of the plane vs. pilot experience. When all the dust settled, the key take-away was simple: Learn to land your plane!
 
Speculation, yes, but it reminds me of an article a while back where they dissected the accident history of the Cirrus vs. the Bo. They went into a lot of detail about the use of autopilot, coupled approaches and the capabilities of the plane vs. pilot experience. When all the dust settled, the key take-away was simple: Learn to land your plane!
The weird part is that both are pretty easy to land.
 
The weird part is that both are pretty easy to land.
The undertone of the writing was that the sort of pilots who buy them never spent enough time developing their basic skills in that particular plane. 400 hours of flying around on autopilot….

Cirrus’ transition training seems to be a well-intentioned counter-measure.
 
I grew up flying there, my family runs one of the banner tow/ air tour operations. That airport has a tendency to "surprise" people. The way the trees are there is very often a lot of mechanical turbulence once you get below them. When we would be towing up the beach I'd watch it all summer where someone would be on final nice and stable and a few seconds later you'd see them come shooting out the other end of the trees on the go around, happens all the time.

I personally have gone in late in the afternoon when the air is fairly smooth and gotten below the trees and had it suddenly kick up and swirl behind me.

Talking to my dad this morning reports are two people and sounds like a botched go around.
 
The undertone of the writing was that the sort of pilots who buy them never spent enough time developing their basic skills in that particular plane. 400 hours of flying around on autopilot….

Cirrus’ transition training seems to be a well-intentioned counter-measure.
I haven't taken it but I've been exposed to it. Cirrus transition training is based on their Flight Operations Manual. It's excellent and could be a model for others. I think the problem with even official transition training is that there are always gaps. You can't teach everything and individual CFIs will have their preferences on what they focus on.

And, as you say, at some point it's up to the pilot whether or not they give their personal proficiency a priority.
 
I know nothing about Cirrus aircraft and not an expert on interpreting FlightAware data. It appears the track log (if I'm reading it correctly) appears to show them doing between 140 mph and 150 mph on the last downwind leg. (And maybe as fast as 160 mph on this first downwind?). Or am I reading this wrong?
 
I know nothing about Cirrus aircraft and not an expert on interpreting FlightAware data. It appears the track log (if I'm reading it correctly) appears to show them doing between 140 mph and 150 mph on the last downwind leg. (And maybe as fast as 160 mph on this first downwind?). Or am I reading this wrong?
You are reading it more or less correctly. The speeds on Flightaware are in knots. But either way recommended downwind speed in a Cirrus is a more typical 100 KIAS.

Another problem is that Flightaware ADS-B data is not known to be super reliable. Assuming the flight data collected by the avionics was not destroyed, the NTSB will have better information.
 
I believe that the later Cirrus have "envelope protection", to prevent certain screwups from becoming fatal. I don't know how aggressive the system is, whether it can prevent a stall if someone hammers the rudder to "tighten" a turn whilst cranking the yoke.
 
Like most of us, I did my training in Cessna’s and Pipers, which have benign stall characteristics.


First, from the early sound changes, to slight shudders in the controls, you have a lot of warning well before the actual stall.


Second, when the stall actually occurs, a quick push forward on the controls is usually all you need to do, and you are flying again.


A prosperous new pilot who upgraded to a Bonanza had a wing with similar characteristics, but more sound deadening, and controls which were less inclined to transmit small quivering. They were substantial, and heavy, smoothing out the feedback, for a comfortable feeling. The warnings were there, but easily ignored.


When I checked out in the first Cessna 177, the stall characteristics were surprisingly different. The leading edge had a smaller radius, resulting in lower drag, higher speed, and better fuel efficiency. The price paid for these improvements were less warning signals as stall was approached, and a much sharper stall.

I have flown both 150 and 180 Hp 177 models.


A pilot upgrading to a Bo from the regular Pipers or Cessna’s had a similar characteristic for near stall and stall performance.

From Cessna or Piper to SR 22 would be even more pronounced than from 172 to 177.

Present training avoids near stall flight, even at safe altitude, resulting in pilots with very little awareness of that region, and if the pilot is increasing bank when the symptoms begin, they can easily be ignored for the few further losses of lift before the plane is stalled.

As commented above, few pilots know the stall speeds at various angles of bank, most cannot even accurately tell their angle of bank without looking at the artificial horizon.

I have flown as a passenger in a Bonanza; Tuskegee airman was the pilot, Mooney, another Air force pilot. I paid much attention to the sounds as we slowed toward touchdown. The Bo gave much more warning than the Mooney, which is logical, as the Mooney has a slimmer wing profile, lower drag and better miles per gallon.

As a separate, but related issue, the three flights that day all appeared to have been flown by autopilot. You paid for it, use it! But you are losing the feel for the plane. You should decouple and hand fly the last 15 to 20 minutes, to get back into the rhythm of manual inputs and plane response.

Presumably, the 20 minute stop at Manteo was for fuel, since there is none at First Flight, and the final flight would have returned to the point of origin. That raised the stall speed above what it had been for the two previous landings.
 
I only have a small amount of time in a 20/22, but the first thing I noticed was how quick the nose would drop and altitude would be lost if you let the airspeed decay. No warning, no perceived mushing of the controls.
And it has stall strips on the inboard leading edges. That says a lot about the wing's stall characteristics.
I can see how a new owner could get in trouble.
 
I have about 500 hours in Cirrus, most in the 22. They fly like any other airplane I’ve flow. The stick takes about 5 minutes to get used to. It will climb 750 fpm on go around with full flaps. The first couple times you go full power while low and slow in landing configuration it may be surprising as to how much rudder it takes to keep bad things from happening, not unlike any other high powered single. I would fly into the downwind at between 120 and 100 knots depending upon what is going on. First notch of flaps opposite the touch down point, full flaps typically on base. 100 knots slowing to 90 by base, 80 or so on short final and 78 or slower if light over the fence. On the g5s and later you can add the first notch at 150 Kias, the earlier models it was 119 knots iirc.

Like any aircraft, speed control in the pattern is important. You can definitely feel decaying airspeed in the plane, the controls start to feel mushy, the plane gets quiet, and most importantly, in the newer planes, bitching Betty makes a racket. You can’t miss it, even before Betty starts talking if you pay attention.

The stall is very docile and predictable. If a wing does drop, there is ample rudder to bring it back into line.

I honestly think some pilots get into trouble trying to fly a cub pattern in a plane that enters the pattern at a speed greater than a cub’s cruise speed.
 
I grew up flying there, my family runs one of the banner tow/ air tour operations. That airport has a tendency to "surprise" people. The way the trees are there is very often a lot of mechanical turbulence once you get below them. When we would be towing up the beach I'd watch it all summer where someone would be on final nice and stable and a few seconds later you'd see them come shooting out the other end of the trees on the go around, happens all the time.

I personally have gone in late in the afternoon when the air is fairly smooth and gotten below the trees and had it suddenly kick up and swirl behind me.

Talking to my dad this morning reports are two people and sounds like a botched go around.
Update: from my cousin who is a KDH Firefighter, 4 Adults, 1 Child
 
I believe that the later Cirrus have "envelope protection", to prevent certain screwups from becoming fatal. I don't know how aggressive the system is, whether it can prevent a stall if someone hammers the rudder to "tighten" a turn whilst cranking the yoke.
Yes. The later GFC 700 have the same Electronic Stability Protection as the GFC 500 and 600. But those are basically for correction of excessive pitch and bank >45 degrees bank; I forget the pitch limits), as well as overspeed. But they can't fix everything a pilot can do wrong..
 
IMO no substitute for knocking out pattern circuits on a regular basis. I used to love watching KC-135 tankers at MacDill AFB banging out T&G's like they were in a 172.

With a TAA like a Cirrus, I can see the temptation to focus your training budget on systems management. That could degrade your basic stick and rudder skills, especially in a rental, club, or fractional situation.
 
Agreed. It flies like a plane - faster than an Archer.
Like any aircraft, speed control in the pattern is important. You can definitely feel decaying airspeed in the plane, the controls start to feel mushy, the plane gets quiet, and most importantly, in the newer planes, bitching Betty makes a racket. You can’t miss it, even before Betty starts talking if you pay attention.

The stall is very docile and predictable. If a wing does drop, there is ample rudder to bring it back into line.

I honestly think some pilots get into trouble trying to fly a cub pattern in a plane that enters the pattern at a speed greater than a cub’s cruise speed.
 
That kinda describes most transport cat operations tbh. One of the few benefits of .mil fatty pilots is they (well, some communities anyways) still bang out continuation training in the actual airplane. The retort is that civilians have "better sims", and the FAA is satisfied with their flight model resolution. Fair enough I guess. But in the absence of level D sims for piston jobs, it'd be prudent not to approach this flying affair as something you can larp in a plastic box with hydro pistons under it.
 
Had a few flights recently so wasn’t rusty. Maybe not used to full plane? Now sure wb of these birds, how easy to get overweight?
Not sure how much of a handfull the sr22 would be with full flaps on the go. But I remember a time with fam on board early on in 182 I had to go around with full flaps. Jammed the power with plane trimmed for landing that nose shot up and the airspeed just bled away as I fought the yoke. Close as I ever came to stalling it. Since then I practice and plan movements on the go so I’m ready.
 
At the time:

KFFA 282110Z AUTO 17006G14KT 10SM CLR 27/20 A2984 RMK AO2 P0001 T02690201

The forecast winds at 1000' at the time were 200@17. Do the reverse math and that's right around 110KIAS on the downwind.

On the first approach they were at 1100’ downwind abeam and about 775’ as they turned base to about a one mile final.
After the first go around, they were closer to 800' downwind abeam and closer to 650' at the same point on final. A few knots extra speed on the second approach, but could just be gust factor.

Landing runway 21, the wind would have been coming from about the direction of the monument itself and Big Kill Devil Hill, kind of on the edge of the woods and clearing around the pathway that demarcates the Wright Brothers first flight.
 
Anyone here with an SR-22 manual that could approximate what the W&B would be with four adults, one child (infant, most likely) and full fuel?
 
Jammed the power with plane trimmed for landing that nose shot up and the airspeed just bled away as I fought the yoke. Close as I ever came to stalling it.

Most times a go around doesn’t have to be a “jam the power in instantly” situation.

Add just enough power to arrest decent and level the plane. While flying along the runway at partial power, reset flaps/trim for takeoff, then smoothly increase to full power and fly away from the runway environment.
 
Anyone here with an SR-22 manual that could approximate what the W&B would be with four adults, one child (infant, most likely) and full fuel?

b26db4519d846b6f16b6136d3b5c62d7.png
 
They took off & flew, even if the weight & balance was a bit off, the plane was flyable. I think it was just the more common lapse in control, rather than major W&B issue.
Do we know for sure if they even left ground effect?
 
Estimate seems high. OTOH, Estimates for the men may be low, maybe it comes out in the wash.
Agreed. I would generally start closer to 190 for the men and 150 for the women, and not everyone is that large. Heck, my wife and I combined are only ~290.
 
The wimmins weighed 184 pounds each?


They took off & flew, even if the weight & balance was a bit off, the plane was flyable. I think it was just the more common lapse in control, rather than major W&B issue.


W&B can cause control issues, too. It’s not just things like ground roll or rate of climb. Stall speed increases with weight, and that CG beyond the aft limit would make the plane less stable, so I can imagine a stall occurring unexpectedly and the plane being more difficult to recover. Probably recoverable with a highly skilled and experienced pilot, maybe not with this new owner.
 
Thank you.
While the women might be a bit over (do we know for a fact that there were two women onboard?) the child and associated supplies probably even things out a bit.

Based on the wrong pattern direction, there is a decent chance a W&B was never performed. What else might've been skipped?
 
Back
Top