Fatality Crash KHOU looks like a Cirrus

[flyingcheesehead]

I don't want the thread to go off in this direction again but I've always stated I don't like the idea of flying GA into a busy class B. that's just my opinion, don't need to debate it, I know plenty of people do it successfully. I just prefer to stay out of big iron's way, that's all.

I don't do it often since the big B airports are generally not anywhere near where I need to go (because people don't like airplane noise, and airports are usually sited accordingly), but IMO the only ones that should be avoided under most circumstances would be the ones like ORD, ATL, LGA, LAX, etc that are really at the highest end of the traffic spectrum and have no shorter runways and not much in the way of GA services.

The Bs that I have flown into have had somewhat lower traffic levels, and can easily handle GA. For example, I've gone to BWI several times, and always been on runway 15L which is only 5000 feet so tends to be only used by GA (including small-midsize jets) and turboprops if it gets busy. No more difficult than flying into an average class C, IMO. In fact, KMDW is a C and has nearly twice as much daily traffic (688 ops) as one of the other Bs I've flown into, KMSY (364 ops). BWI has only a smidge more traffic than Midway (717 ops). The ones I mentioned above are far busier (2418/day for ATL, 2553/day for ORD, etc)

Hobby has 563 ops per day, and plenty of runways to handle them. It is not Houston's "big" airport (IAH) and I wouldn't call it a "busy class B".

IMO, it's perfectly reasonable to fly GA into these sub-1000-ops-per-day spots. In the 1000-1500 per day range, it depends on the time of day, runway configuration, etc but still can be done reasonably easily with planning.

 

[dmspilot]

Another fact AOPA left out, the pilot busted VFE which happened before she even got to the airport. If she didn't follow the aircraft limitations for flap extension it's no surprise she wouldn't follow them for flap retraction either.

 

[tawood]

She actually had a bit of a tailwind so slips wouldn’t helped that much...

Why not?
I think you underestimate the ability of a slip to help you get down fast, quartering tailwind or not.

 

[Salty]

Why not?
I think you underestimate the ability of a slip to help you get down fast, quartering tailwind or not.

The slip could help more in a tailwind situation. Not that I recommend that in the first place.

*edited out my previous paragraph. I watched this and have changed my opinion.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Why not?
I think you underestimate the ability of a slip to help you get down fast, quartering tailwind or not.

I should have said “as much”. But she was at pattern altitude and obviously already slowed, and could not perform a simple side step maneuver, if you have to slip to get down from the pattern...you’re doing something wrong. She was not aware of the winds and how they were affecting her, remember the wind at 1000’ is not the same as the reported surface winds and generally stronger...she kept having problems turning final.

 

[tawood]

I should have said “as much”. But she was at pattern altitude and obviously already slowed, and could not perform a simple side step maneuver, if you have to slip to get down from the pattern...you’re doing something wrong. She was not aware of the winds and how they were affecting her, remember the wind at 1000’ is not the same as the reported surface winds and generally stronger...she kept having problems turning final.

Admittedly I've never flown a Cirrus, and I realize they fly/stall much faster than my lowly Cherokee, but if I was at the approach end of a 6000 foot runway, at pattern altitude, I could slip to land on a remaining 2500 feet no problem...that's 3500 feet, nearly 6/10 of a nautical mile, to get down. Do we know for sure she was at pattern altitude WHILE over the runway? If she was, that makes no sense to me.

 

[Kritchlow]

I’m not sure why everyone is hung up on slips.
The slip is a great tool for emergencies (as a CFI I always taught come in high because there are many ways to burn altitude), but not a fan for normal ops as it is uncomfortable for the passengers.

 

[FastEddieB]

Admittedly I've never flown a Cirrus, and I realize they fly/stall much faster than my lowly Cherokee, but if I was at the approach end of a 6000 foot runway, at pattern altitude, I could slip to land on a remaining 2500 feet no problem...that's 3500 feet, nearly 6/10 of a nautical mile, to get down. Do we know for sure she was at pattern altitude WHILE over the runway? If she was, that makes no sense to me.

I got the impression she was down to 200’ and over the runway at one point.

Am I misremembering that part of the video?

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Admittedly I've never flown a Cirrus, and I realize they fly/stall much faster than my lowly Cherokee, but if I was at the approach end of a 6000 foot runway, at pattern altitude, I could slip to land on a remaining 2500 feet no problem...that's 3500 feet, nearly 6/10 of a nautical mile, to get down. Do we know for sure she was at pattern altitude WHILE over the runway? If she was, that makes no sense to me.

Dropping 1,000 feet in 3,500 feet is quite a steep angle—about sixteen degrees, five times the normal glide slope. Speed control would be interesting in a 172 or Cherokee, likely impossible in a Cirrus. I'd, um, go around!

 

[FastEddieB]

Here’s the image in the presentation that gave me the impression...