Fatality Crash KHOU looks like a Cirrus

page 7 ftw i feel like a basement dweller posting on arfcom , ar15.com,who btw had the best thread on the interwebs regarding this subject thread . . and had a very intellectual discussion of a very sad event . with real facts! . it is sad when a gun site can do it better than a place called Pilots of America .
 
hotprops said:
page 7 ftw i feel like a basement dweller posting on arfcom , ar15.com,who btw had the best thread on the interwebs regarding this subject thread . . and had a very intellectual discussion of a very sad event . with real facts! . it is sad when a gun site can do it better than a place called Pilots of America .
Click to expand...

Well why don't you stay there then?
 
Sorry, going to speculate here and sorry if this has been brought up already. I've been hearing reports that the engine quit or at least was not making much power prior to impact. Some of the vid I've seen sure looks like a windmilling prop. I wonder if a tank ran dry on that last go around then a downwind turn, low airspeed, low altitiude etc.. In all of the commotion prior to the crash it could have been easy not to notice if you were running low on the side that was selected. The airplane was in the air for about 3 hours with all the fuel sucking go-arounds included. I imagine that would have depleted at least half of the fuel or more in an SR-20(leaving with full tanks of course). Does the Garmin perspective give some sort of Aural or visual warning of a low fuel condition of the tank selected?
 
James331 said:
Some controllers are better than others at sensing when chit is about to go sideways and will work accordingly. I think if he would have given her vectors, sent her out a ways and brought her back in, or even recommended a diffrent uncontrolled airport 15+ min away she would still be around.

In this case she appeared to be so far behind the plane, I doubt she even honestly debated the red handle until she was half a second from impact.

BSBD
Click to expand...

So read that some of the cirrus take 45 lbs to pull that handle, I wonder if something was wrong or malfunctioned. I can't imagine having a chute, seeing the ground rushing up out of control and not pulling that handle.
 
PaulS said:
So read that some of the cirrus take 45 lbs to pull that handle, I wonder if something was wrong or malfunctioned. I can't imagine having a chute, seeing the ground rushing up out of control and not pulling that handle.
Click to expand...

I honestly think it was a very short time span between when the airplane stalled and when the impact occurred. I doubt there was enough time for her (or any pilot) to realize what was happening, take action, pull the handle and then for the chute to deploy with that low of altitude.
 
RotorDude said:
That was not a spin, of any kind, looked more like a pancake with a last second turn.
Click to expand...
You're quite the expert, aren't you! 2 seconds of video and you're able to declare with confidence it was no spin--the airplane just autorotated vertically with no horizontal momentum and "pancaked" but it was no spin. Got it.
 
hotprops said:
page 7 ftw i feel like a basement dweller posting on arfcom , ar15.com,who btw had the best thread on the interwebs regarding this subject thread . . and had a very intellectual discussion of a very sad event . with real facts! . it is sad when a gun site can do it better than a place called Pilots of America .
Click to expand...
Link or it didn't happen.
 
hotprops said:
page 7 ftw i feel like a basement dweller posting on arfcom , ar15.com,who btw had the best thread on the interwebs regarding this subject thread . . and had a very intellectual discussion of a very sad event . with real facts! . it is sad when a gun site can do it better than a place called Pilots of America .
Click to expand...

I haven't counted, but there have been maybe 30 or so different people posting in this thread. While the vast majority has been speculative, it has also been very respectful. As a matter of fact, pretty much the only negative posts have been by 3 or 4 out of 30 or so who consider themselves the speculation police. Here is a tip for you since you are kinda new around here, when a plane crashes, the pilots who post here are going to discuss it. That discussion early on will by necessity be speculative. If that offends your sensibilities, then perhaps ar15.com is better place to spend your free time. Just scroll past friend.
 
hotprops said:
page 7 ftw i feel like a basement dweller posting on arfcom , ar15.com,who btw had the best thread on the interwebs regarding this subject thread . . and had a very intellectual discussion of a very sad event . with real facts! . it is sad when a gun site can do it better than a place called Pilots of America .
Click to expand...

This????

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_147/1876661_SR20_down_at_KHOU.html&page=1

The blonde being hot comment was really intellectual. Also the comment that it was definitely pilot error wasn't speculative at all. He must have those real facts that you're referring to that the rest of us don't have. Or how about having a license doesn't necessarily mean you're a good pilot.

If you don't like reading about real pilots discussing the data we currently have, then all due respect, go back to ar15.
 
Last edited:
While there will always be speculation, there were a lot of facts in this case as well. There's audio, video, etc. We know she went around a few times, we know the wind was gusting, we know the plane fell almost straight down, we know several witnesses said the engine sputtered or quit, etc. It's not much of a stretch to say she stalled and/or went into a spin. I don't think this is bashing a pilot, we've all made mistakes when flying, those of us still on this forum have lived and hopefully learned from ours. Unfortunately we sometimes learn from the fatal mistakes of others, which in my case includes losing a few friends to their mistakes.

No matter what happened, it stirred up some conversation about telling a controller unable, or telling them you're not comfortable with a runway. This type of discussion does help our relatively small community.
 
Velocity173 said:
This????

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_147/1876661_SR20_down_at_KHOU.html&page=1

The blonde being hot comment was really intellectual. Also the comment that it was definitely pilot error wasn't speculative at all. He must have those real facts that you're referring to that the rest of us don't have. Or how about having a license doesn't necessarily mean you're a good pilot.

If you don't like reading about real pilots discussing the data we currently have, then all due respect, go back to ar15.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I went and took a peek at that thread, if that's better.........
 
Piperonca said:
Thanks for the link -- would never have guessed ar15.com had a useful aviation forum. Aside from a knuckledragger or two , there are some thoughtful and informed comments.
Click to expand...

a lot of current mil and ex mil guys there with good knowledge.
 
Witmo said:
You're quite the expert, aren't you! 2 seconds of video and you're able to declare with confidence it was no spin--the airplane just autorotated vertically with no horizontal momentum and "pancaked" but it was no spin. Got it.
Click to expand...

Having done a few of them lately (some inadvertently), it's pretty fresh in my mind. I have never seen a spin where the yaw rate is zero. In this video, it's quite clear that the latter is the case, right until the last couple of seconds. So the final part, just prior to impact, could well be the beginning of a spin as I mentioned elsewhere, but that was just the conclusion of a pancake type stall. You don't need to be an expert to see that, only a pair of eyes, which I'll admit to.
BTW, I never said there was no horizontal momentum.
 
hkyplr18 said:
I honestly think it was a very short time span between when the airplane stalled and when the impact occurred. I doubt there was enough time for her (or any pilot) to realize what was happening, take action, pull the handle and then for the chute to deploy with that low of altitude.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the same thing. I know some people have said the "engine sounds" probably indicted a loss of fuel. The stall/spin I witnessed also had "engine sounds", but the impression I got was not that there was fuel starvation or fuel exhaustion, it sounded like the pilot was slamming the throttle in and pulling it out - desperate attempts to regain control and maintaining an attempt to follow rule #1 Fly The Plane. In her case, it might be similar and an indication that she was still trying to fly it even after losing it. Possibly the thought of pulling the chute didn't occur or didn't have time to occur. Another example of constructive speculation: You're low, you're slow, you've had a couple of missed approaches, you are getting turned around because ATC is shifting you to another rwy, ATC tells you to look out for the 737 coming at you, your head is turning everywhere except glancing at the ASI and you get cross-controlled or slow or whatever, then stall and drop a wing. You get that "oh, ****" reaction, then try to recover instinctively, you see the ground coming up and realize you are out of time, so you yank back and maybe slam power back in. There isn't much time for letting go of the controls and popping the chute even if you think about it.
 
Ryanb said:
NTSB brief said it was in a flat spin during impact.
Click to expand...

It might have been (key words: "during impact"), but as I noted elsewhere, it seems to have been in a deep stall "pancake" mode up to a couple of seconds before impact. So if there was a spin, it started at the very end. That's all very evident on the video, where you can see the shadow has zero yaw (i.e. no spin) until just before the end.
 
Last edited:
Matthew said:
I'm thinking the same thing. I know some people have said the "engine sounds" probably indicted a loss of fuel. The stall/spin I witnessed also had "engine sounds", but the impression I got was not that there was fuel starvation or fuel exhaustion, it sounded like the pilot was slamming the throttle in and pulling it out - desperate attempts to regain control and maintaining an attempt to follow rule #1 Fly The Plane. In her case, it might be similar and an indication that she was still trying to fly it even after losing it. Possibly the thought of pulling the chute didn't occur or didn't have time to occur. Another example of constructive speculation: You're low, you're slow, you've had a couple of missed approaches, you are getting turned around because ATC is shifting you to another rwy, ATC tells you to look out for the 737 coming at you, your head is turning everywhere except glancing at the ASI and you get cross-controlled or slow or whatever, then stall and drop a wing. You get that "oh, ****" reaction, then try to recover instinctively, you see the ground coming up and realize you are out of time, so you yank back and maybe slam power back in. There isn't much time for letting go of the controls and popping the chute even if you think about it.
Click to expand...

I figured about 5 seconds from 500 feet if it was a free fall, maybe double that for a stalled airplane? Still not much time. Also the varying engine sound could be due to the rotation of the A/C. I think a lot of questions will be answered when they analyse the info stored in the cirrus.
 
Odd airplane, then? Entry level target market, but squishy low-speed handling? Springs hide the aerodynamic feedback forces? Is it meant to be a x-ctry cruiser, suited to longer/wider runways, like higher performance singles, like Mooney, Arrows, ec.?
 
Well It's certainly not a Super STOL. That should be obvious just by looking at it.
 
I dunno, I guess so, but RVs look racy, and still have good aerdynamic feedback.
 
I'm definitely not an aerodynamic expert but I've looked at my uncle's RVs up close(he had a 4 and now an 8) and they have rather fat wings compared to the Cirrus.. looks that way to me anyways.

I flew the 4, rolled it, stalled it, pretty docile with no bad habits at all. Flew a lot more like a Cherokee with a faster roll rate. I'm an amateur though, so take that for what it's worth:)
 
Sundancer said:
Odd airplane, then? Entry level target market, but squishy low-speed handling? Springs hide the aerodynamic feedback forces? Is it meant to be a x-ctry cruiser, suited to longer/wider runways, like higher performance singles, like Mooney, Arrows, ec.?
Click to expand...

Seems to me it's intended to be a state-of-the-art personal airplane. Marketed as safer because of the advanced all-electric avionics (no vacuum system), redundant electrical system (dual alternators), 4-point harnesses with airbags, high-G impact resistant cockpit & seats and, of course, the air-frame parachute. Marketed as a fixed gear airplane with more room and more speed than an equivalent 4-place retractable - and the ability to step-up to the higher performance SR-22.

I've never gotten around to flying a Cirrus yet, however, I subscribe to the view that even a Cessna 150 can kill you if you fail to treat it with sufficient respect.
 
GRG55 said:
Seems to me it's intended to be a state-of-the-art personal airplane. Marketed as safer because of the advanced all-electric avionics (no vacuum system), redundant electrical system (dual alternators), 4-point harnesses with airbags, high-G impact resistant cockpit & seats and, of course, the air-frame parachute. Marketed as a fixed gear airplane with more room and more speed than an equivalent 4-place retractable - and the ability to step-up to the higher performance SR-22.

I've never gotten around to flying a Cirrus yet, however, I subscribe to the view that even a Cessna 150 can kill you if you fail to treat it with sufficient respect.
Click to expand...

I wonder if all that safety gear and fancy avionics lulls low time pilots into a false sense of security.
 
midcap said:
I wonder if all that safety gear and fancy avionics lulls low time pilots into a false sense of security.
Click to expand...

Avionics? no. Seems every 60 yr old plane I ride in has some sort of Aspen, G430, etc.
If not, everyone has foreflight on an ipad.

I think the "glass cockpit drawing peoples eyes inside" argument has to go.
I have watched a lot of pilots in a lot of planes that are not Cirrus with their eyes steadly focused on the iPad.
And I am not excluding myself from that group. I have plenty of distractions...

gadgets.jpg


Now does the chute give a false sense of security?
That's a great question but it doesn't apply here. She didn't use it and didn't fly into IMC or anything based on having it.

I haven't done anything in the Cirrus I wouldn't do in a 172 but I bet there are some that do.
The only thing I think the chute has had an effect on is just knowing in the back of my mind it is an out when I am flying somewhere that there is no good ditching spot. When I fly, I am always looking for my field if the fan stops. Flying over the hills in Arkansas, I have said, well, there is no good place if it dies here so the chute is my go to if I can't get it started again.

I try not to fly at night but sometimes the sun sets and I have a ways to go. In this plane, I am certainly more relaxed because I have that option.

I bet there are people that do stuff they otherwise wouldn't. I hope I am never that guy.
I don't think we can assume this pilot was based on the data we have.
 
Never flown one, but you all got me curious, and did some reading today. . .So, a synopsis; a comfortable, roomy, well equipped, relatively fast traveler, with poor-to-vicious low speed handling, and somewhat underpowered?

Is that about accurate and/or fair?
 
midcap said:
I wonder if all that safety gear and fancy avionics lulls low time pilots into a false sense of security.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair, the checkout in a Cirrus for most insurance companies/rental outfits is longer than most people fly in a year.


Sundancer said:
Never flown one, but you all got me curious, and did some reading today. . .So, a synopsis; a comfortable, roomy, well equipped, relatively fast traveler, with poor-to-vicious low speed handling, and somewhat underpowered?

Is that about accurate and/or fair?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the SR20 is a tad on the underpowered side, but the SR22 is fine.
 
I have probably 60 hours in an SR-22 (non-turbo, non fiki), and a few in the 20. I found it to be a very capable and responsive aircraft. In comparison the 20 is underpowered (IO-550-N in the 22 compared to the IO-360 in the 20). They are on the faster and slippery side. They certainly are not as forgiving on approach as a Cessna or piper. But nothing dedicated training and gained proficiency can't tackle. IFR it's all about automation management as almost all are glass cockpit.

Having worked on at a cirrus service center as an A&P I think they are not impressively manufactured. You rarely see all black cirrus because if the surface gets over 150 degrees the Composite plies start to delaminate. Also the airframe is life limited to 10k hours as I recall (likely due to the limits of the composite) . Not to mention all the life limited parts. Mandatory part replacement, inspections, etc on the parachute, rocket, reef cutters, inflatable seat belt controllers etc. it's easy to lose track of what's due when you now have 6 or 7 total inspections/part replacements to keep track of.

All in all a cirrus, in my opinion, is an airplane advertised to new pilots with an excess of cash and confidence that works as advertised if you know what you are doing. It is an airplane that needs to be operated by a proficient pilot who can fly and maintain it properly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Not passing judgement on the SR-20, more just genuine curiosity. Inadvertant stall below pattern altitude is gonna have a grim result in most airplanes, for sure. Still, if money were no object, probably not gonna maje my cut for buying. . .
 
RotorDude said:
Having done a few of them lately (some inadvertently), it's pretty fresh in my mind. I have never seen a spin where the yaw rate is zero. In this video, it's quite clear that the latter is the case, right until the last couple of seconds. So the final part, just prior to impact, could well be the beginning of a spin as I mentioned elsewhere, but that was just the conclusion of a pancake type stall. You don't need to be an expert to see that, only a pair of eyes, which I'll admit to.
BTW, I never said there was no horizontal momentum.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people here have performed and seen many spins. From the moment the airplane's shadow appears, the airplane is rolling. It impacted with virtually zero forward speed. That is a spin if I've ever seen one. Go up in a Cirrus and pull the stick straight back and stall the airplane. Hold that. If you kept holding that you would pancake into the ground - with SIGNIFICANT FORWARD SPEED. About the only way to get an airplane's trajectory perfectly vertical is to be in a vertical down dive, or a spin. This was not the former. None of this matters, anyway, I just don't understand why you're so adamant that it wasn't spinning. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.
 
Omalley1537 said:
Also a lot of people who ate their boogers as kids and would mount an espresso machine to their AR if they could find a rail to hold it.
Click to expand...

OMG that's the funniest thing I've read all week. Mostly because it's true. Hahahaha.

Sundancer said:
Never flown one, but you all got me curious, and did some reading today. . .So, a synopsis; a comfortable, roomy, well equipped, relatively fast traveler, with poor-to-vicious low speed handling, and somewhat underpowered?

Is that about accurate and/or fair?
Click to expand...

Matches up with everything I've read.

Mike Smith said:
The fact that the plane in the accident was a Cirrus is a red herring. I believe this pilot would have crashed what ever she was flying that day.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Some stuff is a bit more forgiving in the incipient stall/spin, and hangs out there for a while before needing effort to get it to depart into the spin, and maybe she'd have seen it and flown away shaken but not dead. Very hard to say when it comes to different types, but many supposedly have a bit better behavior when slow, than the Cirrus.

That's assuming it was a spin, prior to that level attitude seen in the shadow prior to the yaw and bank, and so far the video evidence doesn't particular support that, nor refute it.

Doesn't really matter though, you have to fly the one you're in.
 
RoscoeT said:
Plenty of people here have performed and seen many spins. From the moment the airplane's shadow appears, the airplane is rolling. It impacted with virtually zero forward speed. That is a spin if I've ever seen one. Go up in a Cirrus and pull the stick straight back and stall the airplane. Hold that. If you kept holding that you would pancake into the ground - with SIGNIFICANT FORWARD SPEED. About the only way to get an airplane's trajectory perfectly vertical is to be in a vertical down dive, or a spin. This was not the former. None of this matters, anyway, I just don't understand why you're so adamant that it wasn't spinning. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.
Click to expand...

The only thing I am "adamant" about is that the shadow in the video was not yawing until seconds before impact, and I have never seen a spin which doesn't include at least a moderate yaw rate. I am not disputing the possibility that a spin did develop at the very end, just before impact. My only point is that there was no spin before that point.
But I suspect the NTSB will have all of this fully analyzed in their report, and I will certainly defer to their verdict.
 
RotorDude said:
The only thing I am "adamant" about is that the shadow in the video was not yawing until seconds before impact, and I have never seen a spin which doesn't include at least a moderate yaw rate. I am not disputing the possibility that a spin did develop at the very end, just before impact. My only point is that there was no spin before that point.
But I suspect the NTSB will have all of this fully analyzed in their report, and I will certainly defer to their verdict.
Click to expand...

Maybe you saw a different video. The one I saw involved a shadow appearing for all of about one second before impact. It was rotating as it appeared. It sounds like what you are saying is that the airplane was falling perfectly vertically with no rotation, until a second before impact, where a spin may have started. Again, I've never seen an airplane fall in a vertical flight path without either being in a vertical dive, or spinning. I'd be interested to hear how you could reproduce this. And I don't think you can tell much about yaw rate from a one second shadow on a video. And unless a spin is very flat (this wasn't), the roll component is much more obvious than yawing. Believe me, I've done and seen hundreds of intentional spins, and seen some accidental ones as well. I know that they look like and how they develop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top