NTSB Identification: ERA11FA414

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,036
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
Doing a "normal" NTSB read today and I come across this report: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110723X80555&key=1

I'm not a mechanic so somone please tell me what you make of this. Looks like the pilot was working all the way in. I also don't get the strange altitude clearance and weather report.

R.I.P x 2

Note disclaimer: This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors
 
Jaybird180 said:
Doing a "normal" NTSB read today and I come across this report: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110723X80555&key=1

I'm not a mechanic so somone please tell me what you make of this. Looks like the pilot was working all the way in. I also don't get the strange altitude clearance and weather report.

R.I.P x 2

Note disclaimer: This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors
Click to expand...

What strange altitude clearance and weather report?
 
VMC weather(???), yet he's diverting while talking to TRACON (20-30 miles out).
 
"Strange altitude clearance"?

The "weather reports" were likely unsolicited advisories that should have been interpreted: "Hey dummy! Big Storm here! You may wanna change plans!!"

Perhaps trained Cirrus pilots can chime in whether CAP s/b deployed during engine fire?
 
Jaybird180 said:
VMC weather(???), yet he's diverting while talking to TRACON (20-30 miles out).
Click to expand...

The report says the plan was to divert to Valkaria Airport and wait for adverse weather that was then over MLB to move out of the area. Sounds like a good idea to me.
 
The report said "Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed..."
 
Jaybird180 said:
The report said "Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed..."
Click to expand...

VMC prevailed at the point of the forced landing, but there was adverse weather at the point of the original intended landing, MLB.
 
dmccormack said:
Perhaps trained Cirrus pilots can chime in whether CAP s/b deployed during engine fire?
Click to expand...
I don't know if you will get a consensus among Cirrus pilots - some will agrue to deploy the chute for anything and others will only deploy it for very specific cases.

Personally, I don't think I'd want to deploy it with a fire onboard - one thing I have learned from several recent studies about smoke/fire aboard is that you best get that airplane on the ground as quick as possible.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Personally, I don't think I'd want to deploy it with a fire onboard - one thing I have learned from several recent studies about smoke/fire aboard is that you best get that airplane on the ground as quick as possible.
Click to expand...

Right -- I learned (and teach) fuel off, dive to quench flames, land ASAP.

Dive and landing ASAP seem to be precluded by CAPs.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I don't know if you will get a consensus among Cirrus pilots - some will agrue to deploy the chute for anything and others will only deploy it for very specific cases.

Personally, I don't think I'd want to deploy it with a fire onboard - one thing I have learned from several recent studies about smoke/fire aboard is that you best get that airplane on the ground as quick as possible.
Click to expand...

It comes down pretty fast under the chute... 1500fpm IIRC.

That said, if there was a nearby airport I'd head there, but it'd better be NEARby if I'm on fire. But yes, get it on the ground as fast as possible in such a manner as to maximize chances of survival.
 
i doubt pulling the chute would be the thing to do unless you wanted to guarantee a fiery death. 1500 fpm sounds really fast but it is only 15 knots, not nearly fast enough to extinguish flame.

Remember the video of the burning cirrus descending under chute after the midair with the towplane in Boulder?
 
Fearless Tower said:
I don't know if you will get a consensus among Cirrus pilots - some will agrue to deploy the chute for anything and others will only deploy it for very specific cases.
Click to expand...
The Cirrus POH Section 3 Emergency Procedures for engine fire does not call for CAPS depolyment. Section 3 Emergency Procedures for CAPS Deployment and Section 10 Safety Information on the CAPS list mid-air collision, structural failure, loss of control, emergency landing in unsuitable terrain, and pilot incapacitation as reasons to use the CAPS; they do not list fire. There is also a Warning which says, "CAPS should only be activated when any other means of handling the emergency would not protect the occupants from serious injury," and I don't think fire in flight meets that description unless the terrain on which you'd land would be "unsuitable." In that case, I think I'd do an emergency descent (where a much greater descent rate can be obtained) to minimum deployment altitude (around 1000 AGL, I think, in this case), and then pull it level and pop the chute.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I can emergency descend a heck of alot faster than 1500fpm.
Click to expand...

I can, too... In a 182. I don't know how fast I could make a Cirrus come down. It's a slick airframe and has tiny tail surfaces. Cirrus drivers, what kind of descent rate can you get with a full-flap slipping turn below Va?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I can, too... In a 182. I don't know how fast I could make a Cirrus come down. It's a slick airframe and has tiny tail surfaces. Cirrus drivers, what kind of descent rate can you get with a full-flap slipping turn below Va?
Click to expand...
Dunno about that. Book emer descent is clean at Vne (200 KIAS for SR22). I'm guessing well over 2000 ft/min, maybe even 3000.
 
There was a fairly recent incident, I think at a glider port where a Cirrus tangled with a tow plane. The Cirrus deplyed the chute and came down on fire. There were some gruseome videos of the two guys hanging out of it on the way down. I believe it was fatal for both.
 
kontiki said:
There was a fairly recent incident, I think at a glider port where a Cirrus tangled with a tow plane. The Cirrus deplyed the chute and came down on fire. There were some gruseome videos of the two guys hanging out of it on the way down. I believe it was fatal for both.
Click to expand...

This was a direct impact, the pilot of the cirrus died from the impact. Yes, there is a video of the burning wreck under the chute, the rest of the video is imagination.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I can emergency descend a heck of alot faster than 1500fpm.
Click to expand...
Amen to that... and the arrival will most likely be controlled, at consdierably less than 1500 fpm. I wouldn't pull that chute unless the plane was missing parts critical to flight (in which case it is a wonderful "ace in the hole").
 
Jaybird180 said:
Anyone care to comment on the holes in the engine?
Click to expand...
What's to comment on?

That's not unusual in catastrophic engine failures. Basically, the holes in the crankcase along with the ATC reports and witness statement would seem to indicate that an engine failure was the primary cause for the crash landing - not the weather.
 
it does not sound like the airplane was on fire

woulda pulled the chute in that case. the pilot saw smoke which was probably due to the engine internally destroying itself - not a fire
 
The 'smoke' may well have been the oil hitting the hot exhaust without an actual fire. Once the oil is gone, the first thing to seize is a connecting rod bearing, eventually leading to a con-rod failure which punches the classic holes into the case.
 
dell30rb said:
it does not sound like the airplane was on fire

woulda pulled the chute in that case. the pilot saw smoke which was probably due to the engine internally destroying itself - not a fire
Click to expand...

True, but it the heat of battle, the pilot may not have fully realized that and as low as he was, he didn't have too much time to analyze it.

This is just a guess on my part, but I suspect that after the engine blew, the windscreen was covered in oil and that may explain why he wasn't able to make a successful off airport landing in an area of wide open fields.
 
We already had one Cirrus come down in flames under the chute in Colorado. If I'm burning I'm going to do the emergency decent to the ground.
 
Fearless Tower said:
True, but it the heat of battle, the pilot may not have fully realized that and as low as he was, he didn't have too much time to analyze it.

This is just a guess on my part, but I suspect that after the engine blew, the windscreen was covered in oil and that may explain why he wasn't able to make a successful off airport landing in an area of wide open fields.
Click to expand...

Based on my interpretation of the report, he seemed cognizant.
 
flyingron said:
We already had one Cirrus come down in flames under the chute in Colorado.
Click to expand...
That description gives rise to thought of another consideration -- if you're on fire, and pull the chute, where are the flames going, and what happens next?
 
weilke said:
This was a direct impact, the pilot of the cirrus died from the impact. Yes, there is a video of the burning wreck under the chute, the rest of the video is imagination.
Click to expand...

I remember the report read that the impact stretched the pull cord enough to auto deploy the chute.

The previous descriptive post, was not the pilots swaying in the wind, but melting plastic falling off the airplane.
 
Ron Levy said:
That description gives rise to thought of another consideration -- if you're on fire, and pull the chute, where are the flames going, and what happens next?
Click to expand...

Fire goes where ever it wants and if that includes the cabin you burn. If you read the requirements for flame protection by the firewall I wouldn't want to be hanging out while decending under the cute with a fire.
 
Skylane81E said:
Fire goes where ever it wants and if that includes the cabin you burn. If you read the requirements for flame protection by the firewall I wouldn't want to be hanging out while decending under the cute with a fire.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more in terms of the flames damaging the chute risers or the canopy itself; I think we already see that you can get down faster without the chute.
 
Well you have straps up front, I could see where the fire could damage it. Doubt they ever tested that though.
 
Skylane81E said:
Well you have straps up front, I could see where the fire could damage it. Doubt they ever tested that though.
Click to expand...
I suppose the best choice would be to maximize your options -- start with an emergency descent, and save the chute in case things start to come apart, because once you pull the chute, you've dumped all other options.
 
The SR22 does not say pull the CAPS if you're on fire. The engine fire checklist (the longest of any of any of the fire scenarios) is pretty straight forward and similar to just about every other plane: MIXTURE, PUMP, FUEL, POWER, IGNITION all off (or back). The only others are close the vent and open the door. All of which I can do while flying the aircraft without having to resort to the caps.

The last line is "LAND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE." This is nothing to be sneezed at with an in-flight fire. I've had buddies who went straight to the ground and managed to get out with seconds to spare. The amount of time you have is in the very small number of minutes when you're on fire. The ValuJet 592 pilot knew this and still couldn't get there in time. The only time I'd pul; the caps was in an extremely difficult terrain below or that there was something structural that keeps the plane from flying.

The pilot in this case seems to have botched the landing (bounce) more than it not being otherwise survivable.
 
scottd said:
The risers (straps) are made out of Kevlar. Kevlar has been tested very thoroughly. You can do a Google search on Kevlar, but it is used in civilian applications such as body armor for police and emergency service gear to fight fires.
Click to expand...
Kevlar has great ballistic resisitance, and doesn't "melt" or "burn" per se, but according to DuPont, its tensile strength drops off above 300-350F and it "decomposes" at 800-900F. Compare that to the burning temperatures of the various things in your aircraft which can burn. I'll stick with the Cirrus POH on this one -- Vne emergency descent, and save the chute for the bottom of the descent if the terrain isn't suitable for landing.
 
scottd said:
How many pilots have experience doing this? Not many. Those few that do have this experience, the number of times is usually 1. And a few of those survive to tell about it.
Click to expand...

Only a small minority of engine-out landings in singles end up with a fatality, 5% or so. Most end with the plane taking off from whatever hay-field or road they were landed on. Few make it into the NTSB database in the first place.
 
scottd said:
Yes, but you are no longer in need of flying the plane and that frees up your two hands to radio your position, activate your PLB (or ELT) turn off all fuel and electrical equipment and fight the fire if necessary and prepare to evacuate (brief your passengers, put on a life vest if you are over water, etc.).
Click to expand...
\

You mention putting on life vests if over water - one very important thing to keep in mind about the Cirrus is that the chute is designed to work in conjunction with the landing gear collapsing to help break the fall. That does not happen if you come down under the chute on water - so you might not want to be as quick to pull it over water as you would over land.
 
scottd said:
This may be true for engine-out scenarios, but we're talking about a fire or smoke in the cockpit.
Click to expand...

How many engine fires have successfully ended with a caps deployment ?

Even so, most CAPS deployments at a controlled airspeed and with sufficient altitude result in little or no injuries. Sure, there have been injuries and there have been deaths, but most walk away with no injuries.
Click to expand...

I dont doubt that. What I doubt is the idea that a CAPS deployment is the safer course of action unless you are over inhospitable terrain, a city, mountains etc.

There have been 26 pilots that activated CAPS and 50 people have survived as a result.
Click to expand...

Imagine how awful the Cirrus accidents stats would look if those 50 had plunged to their otherwise certain death.

If you look at the fatal Cirrus accidents alone, 46 of 74 Cirrus pilots who died had the opportunity (time and altitude) to use CAPS, but did not. They perished. I believe that most of them (if not all) would still be alive today had they used CAPS.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure about that. The last 4 fatals for SR22 are all loss of control accidents either shortly after takeoff or while maneuvering to land. While technically yes some of these may have been at 501ft, the dynamics of a depature or turn to final stall dont lend themselves to a CAPS save.
 
Here's the full text from the SR22T POH about CAPS Deployment Altitude:
Deployment Altitude
No minimum altitude for deployment has been set. This is because the
actual altitude loss during a particular deployment depends upon the
airplane’s airspeed, altitude and attitude at deployment as well as
other environmental factors. In all cases, however, the chances of a
successful deployment increase with altitude. As a guideline, the
demonstrated altitude loss from entry into a one-turn spin until under a
stabilized parachute is 920 feet. Altitude loss from level flight
deployments has been demonstrated at less than 400 feet. With these
numbers in mind it might be useful to keep 2,000 feet AGL in mind as a
cut-off decision altitude. Above 2,000 feet, there would normally be
time to systematically assess and address the aircraft emergency.
Below 2,000 feet, the decision to activate the CAPS has to come
almost immediately in order to maximize the possibility of successful
deployment. At any altitude, once the CAPS is determined to be the
only alternative available for saving the aircraft occupants, deploy the​
system without delay.
Click to expand...
So, while the recommend making the decision before you reach 2000 AGL, that's not saying you should not deploy it at a lower altitude if that's your only choice. At that point, CAPS effectiveness depends on how adverse your attitude, airspeed, and vertical speed are at the time of deployment, but if the only other option is an uncontrolled impact, a small chance is better than no chance at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top