MidAir at Centennial Airport Cirrus and Metroliner

[Bill]

I have heard many, many times that some pilots adhere to a mantra of “No more than x° of bank in the pattern”. 20° or 30° seem to be the most common self-imposed limits. I think Capt. Thorpe was hinting at that above. I’ve often thought that was poor advice and could easily lead to dangerous skidded turns. But of course it also limits the radius of turn for any given airspeed.

The thing about banked turns > 30* in the pattern is people need to remember not to pull. As long as you're falling through the turn, you can bank pretty far over even at low airspeed.

 

[eman1200]

The thing about banked turns > 30* in the pattern is people need to remember not to pull. As long as you're falling through the turn, you can bank pretty far over even at low airspeed.

Agreed. Not that I do it often, but TEACHING <30* bank is one thing while having the knowledge and ability to bank >30* safely once you’re proficient and have some flying skills is another.

 

[Salty]

The thing about banked turns > 30* in the pattern is people need to remember not to pull. As long as you're falling through the turn, you can bank pretty far over even at low airspeed.

When you’re doing 2x stall speed you can bank pretty hard even if you do pull. In my plane, if I’m flying twice stall speed when straight and level and then bank 60 degrees without losing altitude, I’m still 33 knots from stalling.

M20C stall speed clean, 0 degree bank = 58
Stall speed 60 degree bank = 83
2x stall speed = 116
116 - 83 = 33

I can still pull 30 degrees at 1.3 Vs1 without stalling, and I’m sure that’s true for a lot of planes if not the majority.

At 1.3 Vs0 my plane will bank 45 without stalling.

but too the point, few are willing to do that in the pattern. I had to do a 30 degree bank at 200 feet to keep from overshooting last time I landed at sun n fun. It wasn’t fun, but better than getting hit by another plane.

 

[kaiser]

The thing about banked turns > 30* in the pattern is people need to remember not to pull. As long as you're falling through the turn, you can bank pretty far over even at low airspeed.

JW was king at high bank low pull in the pattern.

Or if you subscribe to DMMS (https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/defined-minimum-maneuvering-speed-dmms.124278/).. fly 1.404 Vs and put whatever bank (<60*) you want in it (that’s 99KIAS in the Cirrus).

with this accident fresh on my mind, parallel traffic just seemed closer the other day (we have 1000ft separation)

 

[Bill]

When you’re doing 2x stall speed you can bank pretty hard even if you do pull. In my plane, if I’m flying twice stall speed when straight and level and then bank 60 degrees without losing altitude, I’m still 33 knots from stalling.

M20C stall speed clean, 0 degree bank = 58
Stall speed 60 degree bank = 83
2x stall speed = 116
116 - 83 = 33

I can still pull 30 degrees at 1.3 Vs1 without stalling, and I’m sure that’s true for a lot of planes if not the majority.

At 1.3 Vs0 my plane will bank 45 without stalling.

but too the point, few are willing to do that in the pattern. I had to do a 30 degree bank at 200 feet to keep from overshooting last time I landed at sun n fun. It wasn’t fun, but better than getting hit by another plane.

I'm not talking about zipping thru the pattern, I'm talking about when I'm banking 35-40 degrees at 65kts. That's when you have to be careful not to pull, and let the plane fall thru the turn.

 

[PaulS]

I have heard many, many times that some pilots adhere to a mantra of “No more than x° of bank in the pattern”. 20° or 30° seem to be the most common self-imposed limits. I think Capt. Thorpe was hinting at that above. I’ve often thought that was poor advice and could easily lead to dangerous skidded turns. But of course it also limits the radius of turn for any given airspeed.

I can’t think of any way to discern if a “low bank, high radius turn” was due to pilot or autopilot limitations. Other than asking the pilot, of course. Which fortunately, in this case we can do.

If I have to do over a 30 degree bank in a normal pattern, to make a turn, I've f'd up. I can pat myself on the back about what a great pilot I am, but unless I purposely am screwing around, I f'd up and need to remember that on the next pattern. A Cirrus is not an airplane to be f'ing up in while in the pattern as this accident proves.

 

[Salty]

If I have to do over a 30 degree bank in a normal pattern, to make a turn, I've f'd up. I can pat myself on the back about what a great pilot I am, but unless I purposely am screwing around, I f'd up and need to remember that on the next pattern. A Cirrus is not an airplane to be f'ing up in while in the pattern as this accident proves.

I agree, but after this guy started turning base, the only option he had left himself was to bank steep to avoid the overshoot.

Well, I don’t entirely agree, as my 30 degree bank at sun n fun was not due to a screwup, unless you count deciding to fly into sun n fun as a screwup.

 

[PaulS]

One thing I really hadn't considered with the accident is the implication of flying at higher altitudes and its affect on speed over the ground. True airspeed is higher for a given indicated airspeed at higher altitudes and you have to keep cognizant of that, especially when overshooting final can result in a mid-air.

While this guy's airspeeds were too fast here, what he was seeing on his airspeed indicator wasn't too out of whack, maybe 135 or 140 knots on the downwind. Faster than I would fly a regular pattern, it's pretty easy to get it slowed down if you do it before the turn to base. After that you start running out of room to get it done in a normal pattern.

 

[PaulS]

I agree, but after this guy started turning base, the only option he had left himself was to bank steep to avoid the overshoot.

Agreed, I still think the guy lost SA relative to the runway while looking for traffic that he obviously didn't have in sight.

 

[Lindberg]

While this guy's airspeeds were too fast here, what he was seeing on his airspeed indicator wasn't too out of whack, maybe 135 or 140 knots on the downwind.

Flying the pattern VFR should be a ground-reference maneuver. Whatever else was going on, this pilot was not looking out the window and doing what needed to be done based on what he saw. If he was obsessed with his airspeed indicator, that may have been a contributing factor. A cirrus isn't a 777; just fly the airplane, not the gauges.

 

[PaulS]

Flying the pattern VFR should be a ground-reference maneuver. Whatever else was going on, this pilot was not looking out the window and doing what needed to be done based on what he saw. If he was obsessed with his airspeed indicator, that may have been a contributing factor. A cirrus isn't a 777; just fly the airplane, not the gauges.

The pattern should require no more than an occasional glance out the window to make sure you are not being blown toward or away from the runway. From the speeds he was flying, and the fact that he accelerated on base makes me believe he wasn't paying attention to his airspeed indicator at all. A Cirrus isn't a 777, but it is capable of accelerating or decelerating quickly in the pattern. If you don't pay attention, it really doesn't feel any different at 130 knots indicated than 100, which is where Cirrus recommends you should be abeam the numbers. You can fly faster, but you need to understand it takes time and distance to slow it down. This guy wasn't obsessed with gauges, he was too fast, with too much traffic around him. He got task saturated, looking for traffic, and I doubt he had the metroliner in sight when he said he did, because he flew right into it. If he hadn't hit the metroliner he would have overtaken the Cessna in front of him and been forced to go around. This is why good CFIs tell you not to try to save a crappy approach. Regroup and try again.

 

[FastEddieB]

While this guy's airspeeds were too fast here, what he was seeing on his airspeed indicator wasn't too out of whack, maybe 135 or 140 knots on the downwind.

I suppose it depends on your definition of “out of whack”.

 

[FastEddieB]

Agreed. Not that I do it often, but TEACHING <30* bank is one thing while having the knowledge and ability to bank >30* safely once you’re proficient and have some flying skills is another.

I suppose, but beware the Law of Primacy.

What I’d try to impart to students goes along the lines of…

“With proper planning, you should not generally need more than about 30° of bank in the pattern. But we’ve done 45° steep turns and you’re proficient enough at them that they shouldn’t scare you, in the pattern or otherwise. Use the bank needed to get the job done, BUT DO NOT RUSH THE TURN WITH RUDDER TO AVOID USING ENOUGH BANK!

If you don’t like the way things are going, it’s fine to break off the pattern and come back and try again. Just be aware of other traffic in the pattern as you choose a path out of it.”

Another reason to avoid overly shallow banks in the pattern is the amount of time your vision can be blocked by a raised wing - especially critical in the base-to-final turn in a low wing, and even worse if you like “rounded” patterns.

 

[luvflyin]

I suppose it depends on your definition of “out of whack”.

I’m confused. Flaps are a degrees thing to me, not %. The picture shows 0% downwind, 50% abeam and then 100% on base. So you’re increasing the % as you get closer. The Table shows the % decreasing. ???

 

[Spinka]

The thing about banked turns > 30* in the pattern is people need to remember not to pull. As long as you're falling through the turn, you can bank pretty far over even at low airspeed.

How tight is the turn radius if you're in a steeply banked turn, not pulling?

 

[Radar Contact]

I’m confused. Flaps are a degrees thing to me, not %. The picture shows 0% downwind, 50% abeam and then 100% on base. So you’re increasing the % as you get closer. The Table shows the % decreasing. ???

I think in the cirrus they are marked as %.

 

[kaiser]

I’m confused. Flaps are a degrees thing to me, not %. The picture shows 0% downwind, 50% abeam and then 100% on base. So you’re increasing the % as you get closer. The Table shows the % decreasing. ???

In Cirrus, there are two flaps settings: 50% = 16 degrees and 100% = 32 degrees. The table shows power settings (also a percentage)

edit:
That being said, the G3 SR22 turbo normalized I fly won’t fly below 30% power, you are basically a brick. I fly 60% entering the airport environment, 40-45% on approaches, 35% on final

 

[Bill]

How tight is the turn radius if you're in a steeply banked turn, not pulling?

I don't have numbers. This wasn't one of my best approaches, I didn't really see the runway threshold until fairly late. I was at 200agl at the start of the turn, at 75kts. Pulled the power and fell thru the turn, rolled out at about 63kts and touched down.

 

[luvflyin]

In Cirrus, there are two flaps settings: 50% = 16 degrees and 100% = 32 degrees. The table shows power settings (also a percentage)

edit:
That being said, the G3 SR22 turbo normalized I fly won’t fly below 30% power, you are basically a brick. I fly 60% entering the airport environment, 40-45% on approaches, 35% on final

Ah. The Table gives you the MP you should be at and tells you what % power that gives you. I’m unconfused now. I take it the flaps are mechanical and not electric.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

How tight is the turn radius if you're in a steeply banked turn, not pulling?

From a theoretical basis (which never happens in real life)...
Maintaining altitude the turn radius is the velocity squared divided by the tangent of the bank angle (adjusted for units, of course).
Holding a constant 1 G load factor the turn radius is the velocity squared divided by the sine of the bank angle.

 

[midwestpa24]

Ah. The Table gives you the MP you should be at and tells you what % power that gives you. I’m unconfused now. I take it the flaps are mechanical and not electric.

The flaps are electric, with a three position switch 0/50/100%. Cirrus also gives you power settings in % on the screen, in addition to the MP/RPM. They teach more about % power versus actual power settings. Managing and flying a Cirrus is designed to be more like operating a jet than how you would think in a normal piston.

 

[Tantalum]

How tight is the turn radius if you're in a steeply banked turn, not pulling?

The approach into Kern can be a little exciting descending down through the valley.. you can get the turn to be surprisingly steep and tight from a radius perspective by falling through the turn as suggested above..

Could probably work out the math, if you're turning at twice the standard rate and going 75 knots you will have turned completely around within 30 seconds.. that should give you a circumference for the whole circle around a mile and a half.. divide that by 2pi and it's a little under a quarter mile radius.. or around 1,000 ft..

 

[Tantalum]

The flaps are electric, with a three position switch 0/50/100%. Cirrus also gives you power settings in % on the screen, in addition to the MP/RPM. They teach more about % power versus actual power settings. Managing and flying a Cirrus is designed to be more like operating a jet than how you would think in a normal piston.

Some, including myself, would argue it is simpler.. and as a result of that presumably safer. Instead of worrying about specific RPM and manifold pressure settings you can just target a percent power readout

Whether the flaps say 15° or number two.. or 50%, that's just semantics. It's like ordering a small vs a tall.. heck, call them green, yellow, red

 

[luvflyin]

The flaps are electric, with a three position switch 0/50/100%. Cirrus also gives you power settings in % on the screen, in addition to the MP/RPM. They teach more about % power versus actual power settings. Managing and flying a Cirrus is designed to be more like operating a jet than how you would think in a normal piston.

Ok. Now I’m gettin’ it. Can you get flap settings in between 0-50-100, or are they hardwired into just those three?

 

[luvflyin]

Some, including myself, would argue it is simpler.. and as a result of that presumably safer. Instead of worrying about specific RPM and manifold pressure settings you can just target a percent power readout

Whether the flaps say 15° or number two.. or 50%, that's just semantics. It's like ordering a small vs a tall.. heck, call them green, yellow, red

Do they have individual throttle and prop controls, or are they one of those one lever things, FADEC I think it’s called?

 

[Tantalum]

hardwired

hardwired. It's just a knob you click from detent to detent

 

[Jim K]

Do they have individual throttle and prop controls, or are they one of those one lever things, FADEC I think it’s called?

They have single lever for prop and throttle, but it's a mechanical linkage, not a fadec.

 

[Tantalum]

Do they have individual throttle and prop controls, or are they one of those one lever things, FADEC I think it’s called?

It's one lever, though it is not FADEC. It is a cam'd design. There is still technically a blue knob but it's hidden from view in some clever mechanical fashion





In the planes I have flown the last few millimeters of travel don't change prop speed much, just the manifold pressure.. though the individual prop speeds and settings are not the same across SR20 - SR22 and g1 through g6

 

[luvflyin]

It's one lever, though it is not FADEC. It is a cam'd design. There is still technically a blue knob but it's hidden from view in some clever mechanical fashion

View attachment 96745

View attachment 96746

In the planes I have flown the last few millimeters of travel don't change prop speed much, just the manifold pressure.. though the individual prop speeds and settings are not the same across SR20 - SR22 and g1 through g6

Ah. So much for using the Prop Knob to cheat on power off 180 spot landings. And I see why they preach the % power thing. It’s not like there is anything you can do about the ratio of MP to RPM. You just move the lever and it’s gonna do what it’s gonna do.

 

[PaulS]

On the normally aspirated, the power settings I use are 30% in the pattern, drop to 15% at opposite the numbers, add 50% flaps (first notch) trim for 90 to 100 knots, turn base, go to 100% flaps on base when needed, by the turn to final I am between 90 to 80 knots, I like to stay around 85 knots until short final, where I used to slow to about 79 knots. Now I use the AOA and let the airspeed get to where it may. Power is slowly pulled out when the runway is made. Pull it too soon and you drop like a brick, leave it in too long and you float. Power off approaches are pretty steep and not really recommended per my understanding, but certainly doable.

 

[Palmpilot]

Using the AP in the pattern in our type of planes is utter lunacy.

Yeah, I've noticed those darn things can lead me astray REAL FAST!

 

[Stan Cooper]

NTSB Preliminary; there's not much we don't already know.

 

[Lindberg]

The pattern should require no more than an occasional glance out the window to make sure you are not being blown toward or away from the runway.

THE PATTERN SHOULD BE FLOWN WITH YOUR EYES OUT OF THE AIRPLANE, WITH ONLY OCCASIONAL GLANCES AT YOUR INSTRUMENTS. (Am I shouting, because I mean to be shouting.)

From other posts here, it seems like Cirrus doesn't really trust Cirrus pilots' judgment. Maybe with good reason. In the past, I've argued against the stereotype, but I don't know if I will anymore.

 

[denverpilot]

NTSB Preliminary; there's not much we don't already know.

I wish it had an estimated distance laterally from the runway in the downwind or a hint as to whether or not it was closer or further than standard.

But needing almost 2000' (if he was flying a standard pattern) to not complete a 180 degree turn is pretty darn shallow.

I'm feeling more convinced over time and looking at the data that he was turning to line up with the wrong runway.

The only way a local does that is if they replaced "Right" with "Left" in their head due to an expectation bias that they'd be landing left for a full stop.

Which when the pattern is light and the traffic is low, is a common thing.

However the vast majority of the time proper phraseology of "change runway to runway 17 Left, cleared to land Runway 17 Left" is utilized by our tower folks. It's very rare to hear a controller not use that phraseology if moving someone over.

So... I have no idea how you'd miss those ever present cues. But I still have this gut feeling the Cirrus wanted the Left and somehow expected the Left in their head.

Not to mention the traffic call for the left. There's been many a time I * wanted * to exit doing laps and land on the big parallel without the annoying long taxi and hold short to get to the ramp... But a single traffic call for that runway made it clear I wasn't gonna get it today... And if there's a line of jets coming from the TRACON you'll be sitting there watching them all land for a good long time. Ohhh well...

But being on the second tower frequency would be an enormous hint that one of two things is happening. Split runway tower ops -- extremely common... Or the main tower radio and it's backup on the main frequency failed... So rare I wouldn't even consider it without being a radio nerd. (The tower actually has three frequencies. One is not published. Well not on aviation charts anyway. You can find it via various means including official public licensing.)

Oh ... For the person who was asking about the Cirrus flap settings, note that many aircraft simply have each detent numbered. Airliners especially. Flaps 1, Flaps 2, Flaps 3... Or Full... Or Landing... Or Approach They can be labeled in many ways.

Cirrus chose percent for whatever reason.

Labeling in degrees or percentages are only two of a few different ways it can be done.

One way I've never seen them labeled could be by the airspeed they're authorized at.

"Flaps 160" doesn't roll off the tongue though. Ha.

Some aircraft do have those numbers printed next to the handle, but it's not the main name you're using from the voice call out or the checklist. (Some checklists also list those next to their primary names.)

Different strokes for different manufacturers.

Mine should be labeled...

Up, Approach, Weird setting only used when you want maximum flaperon from the STOL kit, modern 182 maximum, and holy hell look at the sink rate. Lol.

And even weirder mine are continuously variable anywhere in between those and there tray isn't much of a notch to go by. Haha.

You won't find the degrees where the flaperons start back up anywhere but buried in the maintenance manual for the STC. Not even in the mandatory POH modifications. You really have to dig for that one to find where the bellcrank rigger is supposed to set the maximum droop at.

 

[tspear]

THE PATTERN SHOULD BE FLOWN WITH YOUR EYES OUT OF THE AIRPLANE, WITH ONLY OCCASIONAL GLANCES AT YOUR INSTRUMENTS. (Am I shouting, because I mean to be shouting.)

From other posts here, it seems like Cirrus doesn't really trust Cirrus pilots' judgment. Maybe with good reason. In the past, I've argued against the stereotype, but I don't know if I will anymore.

Where in the world do you get this idea?

Tim

 

[PaulS]

Flying the pattern VFR should be a ground-reference maneuver. Whatever else was going on, this pilot was not looking out the window and doing what needed to be done based on what he saw. If he was obsessed with his airspeed indicator, that may have been a contributing factor. A cirrus isn't a 777; just fly the airplane, not the gauges.

THE PATTERN SHOULD BE FLOWN WITH YOUR EYES OUT OF THE AIRPLANE, WITH ONLY OCCASIONAL GLANCES AT YOUR INSTRUMENTS. (Am I shouting, because I mean to be shouting.)

From other posts here, it seems like Cirrus doesn't really trust Cirrus pilots' judgment. Maybe with good reason. In the past, I've argued against the stereotype, but I don't know if I will anymore.

Yawn....... yes Lindberg, that's what I've been saying, that's what I do. You wrote as if he was staring at the airspeed indicator and telling me the pattern is a ground-reference maneuver. The amount of time, which is what I was trying to convey, I spend worrying about "ground reference" in a pattern is about 2 seconds maybe twice each pattern, glancing at the runway making sure I'm not drifting into it or away from it. The rest of the time is looking for traffic and managing the airplane. That requires being ahead of it, a Cirrus is easy to fall behind in.

This guy didn't manage his airplane, I suspect because he had his eyeballs outside exclusively, he was well behind the airplane, then as often happens if you fall behind, he became more task saturated from multiple callouts for traffic, further distracting him from the trouble he was getting himself in. I don't think he understood how fast he was moving, because he didn't glance inside the airplane when he should have (from the way he accelerated on base when he descended. I suspect he had too much power and no flaps, both of which should have been set on downwind). Someone in his past probably had yelled at him that the pattern is a ground reference maneuver and his eyes should be outside the airplane.

It will be interesting to see the details about this guy, how long he's been flying the Cirrus, and hopefully we'll find out if he had done any of the Cirrus recommended training.

I have no idea which posts you are referencing here that give you the impression that Cirrus doesn't trust it's pilot's judgement, maybe you could point them out. But in reality, what Cirrus doesn't trust is pilots who transition themselves into the airplane, or are transitioned by instructors who don't follow Cirrus recommended procedures. I've run into a few of those instructors as I fly this airplane.

Because of the Cirrus training, the airplane has quickly gone from one with a bad safety record years ago to one of the best safety records in single engine piston aircraft, that certainly doesn't support your impression.

 

[Salty]

Yawn....... yes Lindberg, that's what I've been saying, that's what I do. You wrote as if he was staring at the airspeed indicator and telling me the pattern is a ground-reference maneuver. The amount of time, which is what I was trying to convey, I spend worrying about "ground reference" in a pattern is about 2 seconds maybe twice each pattern, glancing at the runway making sure I'm not drifting into it or away from it. The rest of the time is looking for traffic and managing the airplane. That requires being ahead of it, a Cirrus is easy to fall behind in.

This guy didn't manage his airplane, I suspect because he had his eyeballs outside exclusively, he was well behind the airplane, then as often happens if you fall behind, he became more task saturated from multiple callouts for traffic, further distracting him from the trouble he was getting himself in. I don't think he understood how fast he was moving, because he didn't glance inside the airplane when he should have (from the way he accelerated on base when he descended. I suspect he had too much power and no flaps, both of which should have been set on downwind). Someone in his past probably had yelled at him that the pattern is a ground reference maneuver and his eyes should be outside the airplane.

It will be interesting to see the details about this guy, how long he's been flying the Cirrus, and hopefully we'll find out if he had done any of the Cirrus recommended training.

I have no idea which posts you are referencing here that give you the impression that Cirrus doesn't trust it's pilot's judgement, maybe you could point them out. But in reality, what Cirrus doesn't trust is pilots who transition themselves into the airplane, or are transitioned by instructors who don't follow Cirrus recommended procedures. I've run into a few of those instructors as I fly this airplane.

Because of the Cirrus training, the airplane has quickly gone from one with a bad safety record years ago to one of the best safety records in single engine piston aircraft, that certainly doesn't support your impression.

I don’t think the evidence supports the conclusion that his eyes were outside conclusively. Quite the contrary.

 

[PaulS]

I wish it had an estimated distance laterally from the runway in the downwind or a hint as to whether or not it was closer or further than standard.

But needing almost 2000' (if he was flying a standard pattern) to not complete a 180 degree turn is pretty darn shallow.

I'm feeling more convinced over time and looking at the data that he was turning to line up with the wrong runway.

The only way a local does that is if they replaced "Right" with "Left" in their head due to an expectation bias that they'd be landing left for a full stop.

Which when the pattern is light and the traffic is low, is a common thing.

However the vast majority of the time proper phraseology of "change runway to runway 17 Left, cleared to land Runway 17 Left" is utilized by our tower folks. It's very rare to hear a controller not use that phraseology if moving someone over.

So... I have no idea how you'd miss those ever present cues. But I still have this gut feeling the Cirrus wanted the Left and somehow expected the Left in their head.

Not to mention the traffic call for the left. There's been many a time I * wanted * to exit doing laps and land on the big parallel without the annoying long taxi and hold short to get to the ramp... But a single traffic call for that runway made it clear I wasn't gonna get it today... And if there's a line of jets coming from the TRACON you'll be sitting there watching them all land for a good long time. Ohhh well...

But being on the second tower frequency would be an enormous hint that one of two things is happening. Split runway tower ops -- extremely common... Or the main tower radio and it's backup on the main frequency failed... So rare I wouldn't even consider it without being a radio nerd. (The tower actually has three frequencies. One is not published. Well not on aviation charts anyway. You can find it via various means including official public licensing.)

Oh ... For the person who was asking about the Cirrus flap settings, note that many aircraft simply have each detent numbered. Airliners especially. Flaps 1, Flaps 2, Flaps 3... Or Full... Or Landing... Or Approach They can be labeled in many ways.

Cirrus chose percent for whatever reason.

Labeling in degrees or percentages are only two of a few different ways it can be done.

One way I've never seen them labeled could be by the airspeed they're authorized at.

"Flaps 160" doesn't roll off the tongue though. Ha.

Some aircraft do have those numbers printed next to the handle, but it's not the main name you're using from the voice call out or the checklist. (Some checklists also list those next to their primary names.)

Different strokes for different manufacturers.

Mine should be labeled...

Up, Approach, Weird setting only used when you want maximum flaperon from the STOL kit, modern 182 maximum, and holy hell look at the sink rate. Lol.

And even weirder mine are continuously variable anywhere in between those and there tray isn't much of a notch to go by. Haha.

You won't find the degrees where the flaperons start back up anywhere but buried in the maintenance manual for the STC. Not even in the mandatory POH modifications. You really have to dig for that one to find where the bellcrank rigger is supposed to set the maximum droop at.

He was going about 160 knots over the ground at that fateful turn, a standard rate turn at that speed would result in a 0.8 nautical mile radius turn.

I don’t think the evidence supports the conclusion that his eyes were outside conclusively. Quite the contrary.

I doubt we'll ever really know Salty. If he was focused inside, it wasn't on his airspeed, flaps setting or power.

 

[Dave Theisen]

I doubt we'll ever really know Salty. If he was focused inside, it wasn't on his airspeed, flaps setting or power.

Between this and the fact that he hit another plane, he might as well as been sitting in the back seat.

 

[Lindberg]

Where in the world do you get this idea?

Tim

Everything in this picture. And the robotic training Cirrus provides.