Mid-Air at KBDU

Can any of the BRS's deploy automatically, like an airbag, or does it have to be activated manually. I saw some references to a Cirrus, but I am not sure if that is confirmed.
 
damonb said:
Can any of the BRS's deploy automatically, like an airbag, or does it have to be activated manually. I saw some references to a Cirrus, but I am not sure if that is confirmed.
Click to expand...

At times they deploy on impact, probably through cable stretch when the cabin gets shattered. But no, up to now, there is no auto-deployment mechanism installed (I'm pretty sure someone at cirrus is working on that already, if you have a certain angular move that means the aircraft is in a spin the chute comes out and saves the day).
 
Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

thanks, i didn't see that when i clicked "new posts"
 
Latest word from the gliding community is that the Cirrus hit the towplane (or towplane hit the Cirrus) . Unclear whether the glider released just prior to or upon impact. Whatever the case, that glider pilot probably had a front row seat to a horrifying tragedy. He landed safely.

Tow pilot for Mile High Gliding (where I occasionally instructed) was killed and there were probably 2 in the Cirrus though NTSB mentions looking for more bodies since the plane can hold 4.

A terrible reminder to keep a good lookout.
 
Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

According to friends (pilots) and various local news reports the tow plane pilot saw it coming and released the glider just in time - a definite heroic act! Also, there is speculation that the Cirrus was not on the Boulder frequency and did not know there was glider activity in the area.
 
At times they deploy on impact, probably through cable stretch when the cabin gets shattered.
Click to expand...

Or simply from the force of impact alone setting it off, although in this case, your scenario is probably correct. They deploy frequently on impact (leading one of the NTSB investigators I know to jokingly call the BRS "the Wile E. Coyote system because, you know, it more often deploys out of a smoking hole in the ground than it works like it is supposed to")and this is one possible/probable explanation for the higher than normal frequency of fires in crashes of Cirrus aircraft. It probably was also one of the (if not the) source of igntion for the fire shown in the video.
 
Very sad. The airspace around Boulder gets busy. They have a very active glider club there and lots of traffic. Sounds like the glider pilot did a nice job of getting it down after such a tragedy.
 
I wonder if the Cirrus was equipped with a SkyWatch system, and if the Pawnee had an XPNDR?

It's no substitute for an active scan, but it might have helped.
 
something very similar happened in.....scandanavia? europe? several years back, an ultralight? also with a chute hit a towrope - I think all lived in that one. Should be able to find it on youtube, there was an onboard cam.
 
nyoung said:
I wonder if the Cirrus was equipped with a SkyWatch system, and if the Pawnee had an XPNDR?

It's no substitute for an active scan, but it might have helped.
Click to expand...

BDU is within the 30 mile mode C veil for DEN. The Pawnee better have had a transponder.

Obviously a terrible and avoidable accident. The reports in the papers now indicate the Cirrus was a "local."
 
Geico266 said:
That is just sad.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

What's especially terrible about this crash is that the 'chute actually may have prolonged their agony. Not that they could have survived without it -- the video appears to show one wing missing -- but I sure as heck wouldn't want to slowly descend in a burning aircraft.

My thoughts and prayers are with the families.
 
I read where the 3 surviviors were all in the glider? Pilot, and a woman and her 11 year old son. Can you "legally" fly with 3 in a two place glider? This is way besides the report, but the questions came up at the Sat B-fast.
 
At least the causation will be easy to determine this time:

Sec. 91.113
.
.
(d)
.
.
However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.
 
weilke said:
At least the causation will be easy to determine this time:

Sec. 91.113
.
.
(d)
.
.
However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.
Click to expand...
That is not the cause per say, but it will affix blame. The question still has to be why the Cirrus did not see and avoid the tow plane and glider that had the appears to have had right of way.
 
smigaldi said:
The question still has to be why the Cirrus did not see and avoid the tow plane and glider that had the appears to have had right of way.
Click to expand...

If I say what I think, the cirrus police will be all over me again :rolleyes:.

It may be related to the fact that one aircraft was in cruise and the tow was climbing. There may also have been a considerable difference in speed between the two parties involved.
 
Geico266 said:
I read where the 3 surviviors were all in the glider? Pilot, and a woman and her 11 year old son. Can you "legally" fly with 3 in a two place glider? This is way besides the report, but the questions came up at the Sat B-fast.
Click to expand...

There are some gliders that carry a total of 3 - the Schweizer 2-32 has a bench seat in the back that will (barely) hold 2. That apparently makes it popular with glider operations in tourist areas.
 
The Schweizer 2-32 sailplane is allowed to carry 2 passengers in the back seat. I have given many rides at Boulder in that configuration, often with 2 adults. An adult with an 11 year old child would be an easy fit and each would have their own seat belt and shoulder harness. The rear control stick is removed in this configuration.

The BRS prolonging the agony of the Cirrus occupants is speculation and we all know that speculation has little benefit in these situations.
 
weilke said:
If I say what I think, the cirrus police will be all over me again :rolleyes:.
Click to expand...
I agree.

I cant' help but think it relates to head INside on the DISPLAY vs. eyes out. A Pawneed with a glider in tow is an EASY visual target.

My personal prejudice about exploding, burning aircraft with no tanks in the wings, just voids, contributed to my decision to re-engine the Seneca II.
 
bbchien said:
My personal prejudice about exploding, burning aircraft with no tanks in the wings, just voids, contributed to my decision to re-engine the Seneca II.
Click to expand...

Given hard enough an impact, any plane will burn.

There are some of the 'fiery crashes' that you can't blame on the design issues, e.g. the one in Rocky Hill(Mount?),SC last year or probably this one. The ones that raise serious questions are the low-speed landing or takeoff accidents that end with a fire.
 
bbchien said:
I cant' help but think it relates to head INside on the DISPLAY vs. eyes out.
Click to expand...

Particularly in that airspace where there are at least eight flight training operations plus gliders within a five mile radius. Catch a nice Saturday in February and lots of folks want to go flying.
 
Given hard enough an impact, any plane will burn.
Click to expand...

Not true, although for the sake of generality, you are at least reasonably close to the mark. I've seen plenty of really hard crashes ("Where's the plane?" sort of crashes) where there was no fire despite fuel on board, etc. Then again, I've also seen crashes where the aircraft was demolished and the fuel tanks were intact and still held fuel. The Cirrus about has all the fuel tank integrity of the Mitsubishi A6M and just ask any US Navy WWII fighter pilot how little it took to make one of those ignite. Granted, a lot of the older GA aircraft are not a whole lot better (a little, but not a lot) but given the amount of crowing Cirrus reps do about how much safety was made a major focus in the design, it seems they must not have put that much thought into the aircraft at all then because there are more than a few major oversights in that regard that have become glaringly apparent (lack of cockpit integrity including a "roll cage" that is not integral to the bottom of the cockpit, fuel tank issues, the nasty spin/stall characteristics, marketing the aircraft to low hour/high ego pilots, etc). I'm already on the **** list of the PoA "Cirrus police" so a few more nasty PMs questioning my sanity and my mother's virtue as ways of trying to discourage dissent from their ideology are not going to matter that much to me.
 
SteveinMichigan said:
Not true, although for the sake of generality, you are at least reasonably close to the mark.
Click to expand...

Ok, should have said: 'may' burn.

IIRC, there was an issue with Pawnees and other Piper planes burning up at one point. Oh right, they had a separate fuel tank in the fuselage....

I'm already on the **** list of the PoA "Cirrus police" so a few more nasty PMs questioning my sanity and my mother's virtue as ways of trying to discourage dissent from their ideology are not going to matter that much to me.
Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl:
 
SteveinMichigan said:
Not true, although for the sake of generality, you are at least reasonably close to the mark. I've seen plenty of really hard crashes ("Where's the plane?" sort of crashes) where there was no fire despite fuel on board, etc. Then again, I've also seen crashes where the aircraft was demolished and the fuel tanks were intact and still held fuel. The Cirrus about has all the fuel tank integrity of the Mitsubishi A6M and just ask any US Navy WWII fighter pilot how little it took to make one of those ignite. Granted, a lot of the older GA aircraft are not a whole lot better (a little, but not a lot).
Click to expand...

1971 C-172L: Very small amount of fuel dispersed, no fire; a couple scratched knuckles and scratched nose -- walked away. As I've followed accident reports since 03-14-04 I know how lucky I am.

HR
 

Attachments

  • N7872G on March 14.jpg
    N7872G on March 14.jpg
    154 KB · Views: 358
Last edited:
Only D model Pawnees have wing tanks. All earlier models have the gas tank between the engine, and the pilot. Not the greatest design to have the gas ready to splash on the hot engine if the stuff hits the fan.

The latest on RAS is that the cirrus was owned by a local pilot who should have had knowledge of the local operations.
 
bbchien said:
...I cant' help but think it relates to head INside on the DISPLAY vs. eyes out. A Pawneed with a glider in tow is an EASY visual target...
Click to expand...
Yesteday's vis sucked BAD along the front range when I flew thru there about 3:30pm (didn't hear about the accident until I got home, tho). Had a bad layer of haze, clouds, inversion, foggy pockets, etc ... it was VFR, but nothing close to our normal vis.
 
gkainz said:
Yesteday's vis sucked BAD along the front range when I flew thru there about 3:30pm (didn't hear about the accident until I got home, tho). Had a bad layer of haze, clouds, inversion, foggy pockets, etc ... it was VFR, but nothing close to our normal vis.
Click to expand...

It was better earlier in the day. Not our typical unlimited vis but better than what you describe.

Still, there was no reason for the Cirrus driver to not look out the window...
 
Clark1961 said:
It was better earlier in the day. Not our typical unlimited vis but better than what you describe.

Still, there was no reason for the Cirrus driver to not look out the window...
Click to expand...

I know you're not implying that he wasn't. He very well might have been scanning diligently, and the convergence came from an angle he couldn't see well.

The report may tell...
 
gkainz said:
Yesteday's vis sucked BAD along the front range when I flew thru there about 3:30pm (didn't hear about the accident until I got home, tho). Had a bad layer of haze, clouds, inversion, foggy pockets, etc ... it was VFR, but nothing close to our normal vis.
Click to expand...

I'd say the vis in the video of the smoking Cirrus was well into the VMC range.
 
Jay Honeck said:
What's especially terrible about this crash is that the 'chute actually may have prolonged their agony. Not that they could have survived without it -- the video appears to show one wing missing -- but I sure as heck wouldn't want to slowly descend in a burning aircraft.
Click to expand...

According to witnesses, the guys in the Cirrus jumped. :yikes:
 
TangoWhiskey said:
I know you're not implying that he wasn't. He very well might have been scanning diligently, and the convergence came from an angle he couldn't see well.

The report may tell...
Click to expand...

One thing is fer sure and fer certain, the Pawnee didn't overtake the Cirrus...
 
Clark1961 said:
One thing is fer sure and fer certain, the Pawnee didn't overtake the Cirrus...
Click to expand...

One scenario I can imagine is both of them climbing on nearly identical tracks (say southbound for this argument). If the Cirrus is at a higher altitude, and overtaking the Pawnee below, neither pilot might see the other until they converge at the same inopportune spot in space.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top