Melbourne cirrus crash. Stall/spin?

Strange... stall likely, spin not likely unless he was reacting with full deflections to a near hit and it didn't sound like that....
 
I listened to the tape a couple of times.

Tower had cleared two Cirri to land on 9R, and did not advise either of them "Number 2".

The crashed Cirrus had requested - and received the OK for - a long landing on 9R so he turned base early. This apparently put him in conflict with the other Cirrus on final and resulted in very agitated instructions from the Tower.

I know its see and avoid in Class D, but it sounds like the Tower could have done more for the crashed Cirrus.

The tower was working simultaneous landings on two parallel runways. The frequency was busy. I'm guessing the crashed Cirrus never heard the landing clearance for the other Cirrus, and so never made the "I'm No. 2 and I'll have to extend to get behind him" thought.
 
I had flown in to Melbourne several weeks ago and they had a lot of student traffic that was not quite up to speed on taking direction.
 
I just gotta tell myself, just fly the plane.

A Gobosh took up 4/5 of a 8000ft runway as I was expecting a quick touch n go from it as I was on short final. I had to do a go around about 50 ft above the runway. Then the Gobosh was so slow off the ground on 29L that I didn't want to veer too far to the right into 29R to get out of the way. Tower said, "that was close."
 
If the pilot screws up the pilot dies, if the controller screws up the pilot dies.

Take your pick. :sad:
 
Wouldn't have to spin to crash from that altitude... wouldn't even have to fully stall. I wonder where the plane ended up, relative to the runway? Obviously not between 9L and 9R; did he continue turning right beyond the centerline of 9R?

Seems like the pilot was overly focused; regardless of what Tower said, he possibly could have just gone around (depending on potential conflict with other traffic). I'll bet he didn't even take a quick look to the left for the other Cirrus, to judge for himself. But what's even stranger than him losing it from that base leg is... he was not over the centerline yet when advised to "cut it tight" or whatever Tower said... did the controller want him to cut the corner? I'm not even sure the other Cirrus was a significant factor yet. But if he felt that they'd come too close, I'd expect Tower to have the Cirrus on final go around, and report the landing Cirrus in sight. Using parallel runways for landings, he couldn't have #2 circle or S-turn, so that would make sense, even though the pattern was busy.

Not to blame the controller per se, he wasn't flying the plane...but it just seems odd to me. I've seen and heard this sort of thing unfold before at busy towered airports, and in all cases where #2 was that close ( a mile or less on final), the plane that was #2 for that runway was told to either S-turn or do a 360 on final, or go around. I've been #2... and I've been #1. Been asked to turn base early or cut the corner, but only when #2 was farther out than in the Melbourne scenario, and only in words that made it perfectly clear what they wanted me to do.

But as I said, he wasn't flying the plane... and it didn't have to end the way it did. Too bad. :nonod:
 
If the crash was due to a stall (less than 61kts) it surprised me that nobody survived the impact that was probably arrested by the trees. I would look into the crashworthiness of the Cirrus. In other airframes like the Mooney this crash would have been survivable. So much for the parachute. But now I know why it is required for the Cirrus.

José
 
Piloto said:
If the crash was due to a stall (less than 61kts) it surprised me that nobody survived the impact that was probably arrested by the trees. I would look into the crashworthiness of the Cirrus. In other airframes like the Mooney this crash would have been survivable. So much for the parachute. But now I know why it is required for the Cirrus.
Click to expand...
Not from this crash you don't. And it was never "required," just deemed appropriate by the man behind the Cirrus, Alan Klapmeier. The only reason it's a go/no-go item now is because the FAA approved the BRS as an alternate means of compliance for the spin testing requirements in Part 23.

And I really don't see how you can say this crash would have been survivable in a Mooney but not in a Cirrus based solely on the TV report linked above. Drop a Mooney in nose-first from a few hundred feet, and nobody's walking away from that, either.

Finally, even BRS won't save you from a loss of control at low altitude -- it needs time to fully deploy. In that regard, it is no better than spin recovery training -- if you're that low and stall/spin the plane, there's nothing you can do but pray for forgiveness or hope you're so low there's no time for a large vertical velocity to develop.
 
Last edited:
Piloto said:
If the crash was due to a stall (less than 61kts) it surprised me that nobody survived the impact that was probably arrested by the trees. I would look into the crashworthiness of the Cirrus. In other airframes like the Mooney this crash would have been survivable. So much for the parachute. But now I know why it is required for the Cirrus.

José
Click to expand...


While I have a few issues with the crash worthiness of the Cirrus I wouldn't go as far as all that, especially in this accident; besides, people die in Mooney crashes as well.
 
Piloto said:
If the crash was due to a stall (less than 61kts) it surprised me that nobody survived the impact that was probably arrested by the trees. I would look into the crashworthiness of the Cirrus. In other airframes like the Mooney this crash would have been survivable. So much for the parachute. But now I know why it is required for the Cirrus.

José
Click to expand...

Probably depends alot on the orientation of the aircraft when it hits. What is interesting is that this accident appears to have some similarities with the recent SDL accident and that one came down in the middle of a road - both occupants survived the impact, but the pilot was killed by the post-crash fire.

Difference would appear to be that in the SDL accident it looks like they landed relatively flat - gear probably took the brunt of the force. In the Melbourne accident, the wreckage looks like it possibly impacted sideways.
 
Piloto said:
If the crash was due to a stall (less than 61kts) it surprised me that nobody survived the impact that was probably arrested by the trees. I would look into the crashworthiness of the Cirrus. In other airframes like the Mooney this crash would have been survivable. So much for the parachute. But now I know why it is required for the Cirrus.

José
Click to expand...

Well, in this base to final stall-spin the Mooney pilot died. A stall-spin tends to be more straight down and hence less survivable no matter what the airplane.
 
Piloto said:
If the crash was due to a stall (less than 61kts)
José
Click to expand...

At a 60 degree bank angle a plane stalls at 1.41 times its normal stall speed. Secondly, you are assuming full flaps are in. Is that known?
 
JimNtexas said:
Don't fear the bank angle, fear the ball.
Click to expand...

But only when the ball and the bank angle are in the same direction. Ball way off center opposite the bank (slip) is very spin resistant in most airplanes. All folks get from most CFI's is "ball not centered = spin". That's an inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete picture.
 
peppy said:
Well, in this base to final stall-spin the Mooney pilot died. A stall-spin tends to be more straight down and hence less survivable no matter what the airplane.
Click to expand...

Notice that on the Mooney crash there were no trees to arrest the impact and only one occupant. If there were three occupants in the plane the two others may have survived. From the pictures the vegetation looks relatively soft to arrest the impact but notice how the Cirrus broke in multiple pieces which is typical for composite structures. Same happens when you drop a glass cup vs. a metal one, the glass shatters. Composites cracks and breaks aluminum bends.

José
 
RoscoeT said:
But only when the ball and the bank angle are in the same direction. Ball way off center opposite the bank (slip) is very spin resistant in most airplanes. All folks get from most CFI's is "ball not centered = spin". That's an inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete picture.
Click to expand...

Not from this CFI -- slips are part of airplane control training, period.
 
Piloto said:
Notice that on the Mooney crash there were no trees to arrest the impact and only one occupant. If there were three occupants in the plane the two others may have survived. From the pictures the vegetation looks relatively soft to arrest the impact but notice how the Cirrus broke in multiple pieces which is typical for composite structures. Same happens when you drop a glass cup vs. a metal one, the glass shatters. Composites cracks and breaks aluminum bends.

José
Click to expand...

Crashworthiness depends on many things including crumple zones, cockpit rigidity etc. I have no idea whether a Mooney or a Cirrus is stronger in a crash and I doubt you do either. A base to final stall spin has historically been a high fatality event. I see nothing Cirrus specific about this accident. I will grant that a plane with a lower stall speed probably has a higher likelihood of being survivable but a stall at 500', especially if uncoordinated (excessive rudder) is a nasty thing.
 
Insurance rates for cirrus...will rise...again.

This will be followed by explanations of how safe they are.
 
peppy said:
At a 60 degree bank angle a plane stalls at 1.41 times its normal stall speed. Secondly, you are assuming full flaps are in. Is that known?
Click to expand...

And you can double your stall speed from the 1g value in a 45 degree bank (or less) if you pull back on the wheel hard enough). Speed does not protect against a stall, which is one of the reasons I have an AoA indicator on the glareshield of my airplane.

As to the difference between a stall (sans spin) and a stall/spin, when you're only 100-200 AGL there's not going to be enough time for a spin to develop before you hit the ground and for recovery in the initial portion of spin entry, unloading the wing is all that's really required.
 
Datadriver said:
Insurance rates for cirrus...will rise...again.

This will be followed by explanations of how safe they are.
Click to expand...

Nawh... the insurance companies will see that based on the number of planes out there the rate is still the same. A few will claim it's super safe but marketing is the issue. Others will call it super dangerous when data doesn't support that either. In reality the numbers say a Cirrus is similar in accident rate to other aircraft with the same mission profile. However, people who love to bash will continue to spout crap based on nothing more than their desire to hate something they don't have. Just look at this crash. It has little to do with the type of plane flown and a lot to do with busy airports, human controllers making mistakes, and pilots not saying "unable" when they should. Perhaps airmanship could also be thrown in. No plane is perfect and there are certainly flaws with Cirrus aircraft. However, so many of the comments have little basis in fact it can try a person's patience.
 
It seems like people always jump on Cirrus when one crashes. Looking at the previous 10 days worth of accidents from the FAA site there were 8 fatal accidents.

1 Cirrus
1 Experimental
1 Cessna 172
1 Mooney
1 Cessna 210
1 Comanche
1 BD-4
1 Cessna 414

The only other one of those accidents I remember reading about here was the 414.
 
You can add a Columbia (oops Corvalis) to your list. A report can be found here.
 
RoscoeT said:
But only when the ball and the bank angle are in the same direction. Ball way off center opposite the bank (slip) is very spin resistant in most airplanes. All folks get from most CFI's is "ball not centered = spin". That's an inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete picture.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be a skid?
 
peppy said:
At a 60 degree bank angle a plane stalls at 1.41 times its normal stall speed. Secondly, you are assuming full flaps are in. Is that known?
Click to expand...

This seems to be a recurring thing here, but... your stall speed only increases in a turn if and ONLY if you fight the vertical acceleration that results from banking. If you crank in 60* of bank and do nothing to check the resulting descent rate, your stall speed will remain the same since there will be no increase in load factor. Remember, the wing doesn't care about its position relative to the horizon. The real killer is when you start pulling back on the yoke to prevent your airplane from descending -- thereby increasing your load factor. And, again, you only have an increased load factor when you're in a banked turn and attempting to hold a steady vertical speed. You can just as easily enter an accelerated stall with zero degrees of bank. All you gotta do is pull back hard enough, fast enough. :)
 
Last edited:
This is why an AOA is vital to GA. The FAA has stalled long enough. I hope someone can STC them in Cirrus soon. As the wife gave a go ahead to purchase a SR22!!!
 
jmp470 said:
This is why an AOA is vital to GA. The FAA has stalled long enough. I hope someone can STC them in Cirrus soon. As the wife gave a go ahead to purchase a SR22!!!
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you can get one right now.
 
jmp470 said:
This is why an AOA is vital to GA. The FAA has stalled long enough. I hope someone can STC them in Cirrus soon. As the wife gave a go ahead to purchase a SR22!!!
Click to expand...

I respectively dissagree......

An AOA is just a tool, one of many that assists a pilot to help make any flight a safe one. Staring at the AOA indicator will lead to unintended consequences... Just fly the plane.... By relying on a multitude of gauges to save your butt will give a false sense of security. If you cannot fly a pattern without using gauges my I suggest more time with a competent instructor.... Without good seat of the pants feedback you are just another one who is behind the plane..IMHO
My opinion is this poor guy did a "yank and bank on a base to final turn...
My instructor drilled into my head "DON'T DO THAT " ..:nono::nono::nono::nonod:


Ben.
 
N801BH said:
My opinion is this poor guy did a "yank and bank on a base to final turn...
My instructor drilled into my head "DON'T DO THAT " ..:nono::nono::nono::nonod:


Ben.
Click to expand...

Your instructor obviously didn't understand the finer points of the overhead break pattern...:rolleyes::rofl:
 
N801BH said:
I respectively dissagree......

An AOA is just a tool, one of many that assists a pilot to help make any flight a safe one. Staring at the AOA indicator will lead to unintended consequences... Just fly the plane.... By relying on a multitude of gauges to save your butt will give a false sense of security. If you cannot fly a pattern without using gauges my I suggest more time with a competent instructor.... Without good seat of the pants feedback you are just another one who is behind the plane..IMHO
My opinion is this poor guy did a "yank and bank on a base to final turn...
My instructor drilled into my head "DON'T DO THAT " ..:nono::nono::nono::nonod:


Ben.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's also likely that even if the accident aircraft had had an AOA, the accident pilot - who was at least rushed, possibly disoriented, and may even have panicked when tower told him to tighten his turn - never looked at the panel during the accident sequence. Sadly, based on the ATC audio, it sounds like his fate was sealed in seconds - not enough time to verify his control inputs against an AOA.
 
peppy said:
At a 60 degree bank angle a plane stalls at 1.41 times its normal stall speed.
Click to expand...
Only if it's being held in a level turn (i.e., 2g load factor). Hold 1 g at 60 bank, and stall speed is unchanged. Unload it at that bank angle, and stall speed goes down, not up.

Why won't they make AoA gauges mandatory equipment?
 
Ron Levy said:
Why won't they make AoA gauges mandatory equipment?
Click to expand...

I'd like to see AoA gauges as an option on GA airplanes. I would NOT, however, support making them mandatory. I'd tend to think AoA gauges wouldn't really even help with most of the low altitude stall/spin accidents anyway. Those accidents usually happen after the pilot got miles behind the airplane in the first place, and an AoA gauge would likely go completely unnoticed while they're yanking and banking in a panic.
 
TedR3 said:
I listened to the tape a couple of times.

Tower had cleared two Cirri to land on 9R, and did not advise either of them "Number 2".

The crashed Cirrus had requested - and received the OK for - a long landing on 9R so he turned base early. This apparently put him in conflict with the other Cirrus on final and resulted in very agitated instructions from the Tower.

I know its see and avoid in Class D, but it sounds like the Tower could have done more for the crashed Cirrus.

The tower was working simultaneous landings on two parallel runways. The frequency was busy. I'm guessing the crashed Cirrus never heard the landing clearance for the other Cirrus, and so never made the "I'm No. 2 and I'll have to extend to get behind him" thought.
Click to expand...

Didn't the controller tell the crashed Cirrus to turn left just after he approved the long landing on 9R? And he never told the Cirrus he was cleared to land although the Cirrus readback cleared to land. I don't think the tower had him in sight until the Cirrus said he was on a tight base. The tower must have picked him up and saw the conflict with Cirrus 611DA that was cleared to do a touch and go. That's when he instructed him to turn it tight to runway 9R.
 
matthammer said:
I'd like to see AoA gauges as an option on GA airplanes. I would NOT, however, support making them mandatory. I'd tend to think AoA gauges wouldn't really even help with most of the low altitude stall/spin accidents anyway. Those accidents usually happen after the pilot got miles behind the airplane in the first place, and an AoA gauge would likely go completely unnoticed while they're yanking and banking in a panic.
Click to expand...

Agreed.


---- related rant below-----

"AoA gauges"

Oh good grief -- another gauge?? Sure, if you need one on your panel -- fine. Toss in a metronome, astrolabe, and abacus while you're at it...

:rolleyes2:

How many stall-spins occurred in airplanes with operating stall horns?

Here's a thought -- learn to fly and feel the wing without relying on a gadget.
 
dmccormack said:
...Toss in a metronome, astrolabe, and abacus while you're at it........Here's a thought -- learn to fly and feel the wing without relying on a gadget.
Click to expand...
Astrolabe- Naaah. You'd need to reinstall the bubble above the back seat.

But Dan you're spot on. I miss my AOA but even the big airplanes are talking to you when flying. One just has to STFU and listen.
 
dmccormack said:
Agreed.


---- related rant below-----

"AoA gauges"

Oh good grief -- another gauge?? Sure, if you need one on your panel -- fine. Toss in a metronome, astrolabe, and abacus while you're at it...

:rolleyes2:

How many stall-spins occurred in airplanes with operating stall horns?

Here's a thought -- learn to fly and feel the wing without relying on a gadget.
Click to expand...


:eek::idea::yikes::rofl::rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top