Orlando, which one of you Cirrus drivers did this???

This is about as stupid a move as I can think of, someone needs to lose their license..... if they have one.
 
Just when you think people can’t get any dumber... :frown2:
 
Last time I was at Sanford there were a ton of Cirruses there. I think a flight school uses them. And most of the students seem to not have English as a first language. Very hard to understand.
 
I tried to stop vid to catch a tail number but couldn’t. Video pretty poor quality. But still rather shocking.
 
No, he was Cirrus pilot. He didn't taxi under the wing of the airliner. That airliner had the audacity to be where he was taxiing. Cirrus should file a complaint against that airline captain, as well as the ground control that put the airliner where it was. And against a few others for no reason.

If aircraft were motorcycles, I'm thinking Cirrus owners would be equivalent to BMW riders. Cessnas and Pipers probably Honda and Yamaha.

And of course that is an over reaching sterotype of aircraft pilots - all in good fun :D
 
WDD said:
No, he was Cirrus pilot. He didn't taxi under the wing of the airliner. That airliner had the audacity to be where he was taxiing. Cirrus should file a complaint against that airline captain, as well as the ground control that put the airliner where it was. And against a few others for no reason.

If aircraft were motorcycles, I'm thinking Cirrus owners would be equivalent to BMW riders. Cessnas and Pipers probably Honda and Yamaha.

And of course that is an over reaching sterotype of aircraft pilots - all in good fun :D
Click to expand...

Lol, you put that last sentence in as an afterthought, lol. Apparantly Sanford has a school with a bunch of Cirrus and many English as a second language students. Would be nice to find out what happened here.
 
I'm a new guy here. Been lurking for many days and recently joined.

Hard to see this kinda stuff and not comment ... o_O

I have a folder on my computer titled, "Don't Do Anything Dumb!" This was just added to it.

Dale
 
Maybe he was just trying to be like Vin Diesel and go underneath?

 
Gotta believe ATC tracked that Cirrus and got their tail number. Would love to be a fly on the wall if/when FAA comes calling to hear how that plays out.
 
I cannot imagine taxiing within 50 feet of a commercial aircraft. For the past year I have been forced to thread my way between two rows of parked 737 Max's to get to the 100LL fuel at my home base. My wing tips are probably 125-150 from their wings (and they are much higher than mine), but I cringe as I slowly creep by. I'm pretty sure my GA insurance policy wouldn't begin to cover the damage I could cause. LOL

I watched this video several times and think that he really didn't pass under the wing. Note his wing tip taxi light. The glow on the taxiway seems to suggest that the tip of his wing was very close to the vertical plane of the other, but probably not really under it; certainly not under the engine as the diagram shows. Nevertheless, it was totally irresponsible and reckless. Pilots like this, regardless of the type of aircraft, are probably even more dangerous in the air.
 
benyflyguy said:
I tried to stop vid to catch a tail number but couldn’t. Video pretty poor quality. But still rather shocking.
Click to expand...
I think it was actually blurred out, and the video clipped.
WDD said:
No, he was Cirrus pilot. He didn't taxi under the wing of the airliner. That airliner had the audacity to be where he was taxiing. Cirrus should file a complaint against that airline captain, as well as the ground control that put the airliner where it was. And against a few others for no reason.

If aircraft were motorcycles, I'm thinking Cirrus owners would be equivalent to BMW riders. Cessnas and Pipers probably Honda and Yamaha.

And of course that is an over reaching sterotype of aircraft pilots - all in good fun :D
Click to expand...
Naw, Cirrus owners would be the owners of any bike whose designation begins or ends with 'R'.
 
Consider a separate forum category for “SCTs” (stupid cirrus tricks)?
I could share one.
 
dfw11411 said:
I cannot imagine taxiing within 50 feet of a commercial aircraft. For the past year I have been forced to thread my way between two rows of parked 737 Max's to get to the 100LL fuel at my home base. My wing tips are probably 125-150 from their wings (and they are much higher than mine), but I cringe as I slowly creep by. I'm pretty sure my GA insurance policy wouldn't begin to cover the damage I could cause. LOL

I watched this video several times and think that he really didn't pass under the wing. Note his wing tip taxi light. The glow on the taxiway seems to suggest that the tip of his wing was very close to the vertical plane of the other, but probably not really under it; certainly not under the engine as the diagram shows. Nevertheless, it was totally irresponsible and reckless. Pilots like this, regardless of the type of aircraft, are probably even more dangerous in the air.
Click to expand...

I measured it up on Google maps, from the line to the taxi way edge is about 45 feet. The main right wheels are on the line. The wing is about 43 feet from those wheels to the tip. The Cirrus definitely was under the wing, plus the ground crew said it went under the wing.

Would never get that close to one of those that was running or about to be running.
 
It looks like this happened on charlie between mike & lima, all south of 9C?
The 320 just left the gate (pushed back?), was starting up, on or very close to charlie; the Cirrus was probably following the taxiway centerline, then deviated once the 320 was noticed (how difficult is it to see one of these guys from the rear, at night?), then kept on going around it.

Just trying to picture what happened. (certainly the better response would have been to stop, not to ‘find a way around’)
So if all that was correct, (and the C pilot was neither taxiing w/o a clearance nor totally out of place), he should have been given a ‘give way to the Airbus’, ‘stop behind the Airbus’, no?





682FB7B1-7416-410B-BC00-C9CE8BEF28AF.jpeg
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
It looks like this happened on charlie between mike & lima, all south of 9C?
The 320 just left the gate (pushed back?), was starting up, on or very close to charlie; the Cirrus was probably following the taxiway centerline, then deviated once the 320 was noticed (how difficult is it to see one of these guys from the rear, at night?), then kept on going around it.

Just trying to picture what happened. (certainly the better response would have been to stop, not to ‘find a way around’)
So if all that was correct, (and the C pilot was neither taxiing w/o a clearance nor totally out of place), he should have been given a ‘give way to the Airbus’, ‘stop behind the Airbus’, no?





View attachment 84305
Click to expand...
Hah, I clicked the Tap to view 7 NOTAMs button!
 
Wow....SFB was just a sleepy little GA airport when I was in flight training there. The original Navy tower was still there but abandoned, and there was only 3 runways.

One of the biggest planes I saw there was a Constellation that had two engines feathered and was parked just off runway 9L on IIRC B-1.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
how difficult is it to see one of these guys from the rear, at night?
Click to expand...
I landed at a busy class C airport late one dark night and ground advised taxi via ... hold short of an intersecting taxiway. I read it back and stopped as cleared by ground. After a while I called ground and said still holding short at... as a nudge to try and continue on as I had been there a while. Ground came back and instructed me to continue to hold. Right after that a guy called ground and said they were holding on my same taxiway at the same intersection (which I found surprising as I didn't see any other aircraft). Ground then instructed that guy to take the intersecting taxiway and continue on. Right then I noticed a huge airliner appear out of the darkness directly in front of me turning onto the intersecting taxiway. He turned on his taxi lights as he was turning. I never saw him until he was in the intersection directly in my path.
 
Last edited:
Zeldman said:
Wow....SFB was just a sleepy little GA airport when I was in flight training there.
Click to expand...

It's since become a large base for Allegiant, and there are a couple of puppy mills that set up shop there. At least it's towered!
 
Ravioli said:
If it was San Diego instead of Orlando I'd blame @Tantalum :)
Click to expand...
The closest I ever came to a stunt like that was pushing the plane back into a tight spot.. one of the few times I appreciated the high wings of a 172!
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Dang, he could have crushed you like a bug!
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing. When I called ground for further taxi clearance I was waiting to proceed straight ahead right into, or under, him.
 
jordane93 said:
Maybe he was just trying to be like Vin Diesel and go underneath?

Click to expand...

I’ve felt tempted to do that when on a motorcycle during farming season when behind one of the really tall sprayers going down the road. No, I wouldn’t actually do it, but it’s tempting.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I’ve felt tempted to do that when on a motorcycle during farming season when behind one of the really tall sprayers going down the road. No, I wouldn’t actually do it, but it’s tempting.
Click to expand...
It always crosses my mind in the Caterham when next to an 18 wheeler on the Interstate...but I’ve better sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
wrbix said:
It always crosses my mind in the Caterham when next to an 18 wheeler on the Interstate...but I’ve better sense.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't for the 4-cylinder aspect, a Caterham might have been what I built instead of the Cobra.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
If it wasn't for the 4-cylinder aspect, a Caterham might have been what I built instead of the Cobra.
Click to expand...
I dunno ... a turbo 4 weighs less and can put out more low-end torque than a V-8 and peak at 400 bhp (and you can make the torque and HP numbers as high as you can, um, afford.)
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I dunno ... a turbo 4 weighs less and can put out more low-end torque than a V-8 and peak at 400 bhp (and you can make the torque and HP numbers as high as you can, um, afford.)
Click to expand...

For me it's not about strict power output, it's about the visceral qualities. I am not a fan of in-line 4-cylinders because of the inherent vibrations those engines have, and I also do not like the sound of them. Although I like turbos in some applications, I don't like them a something that's supposed to be a pure performance vehicle because of the lag associated - I want as quick of response as possible.

There are some V6s that I can tolerate (mostly Italian ones), but straight 6, V8, or V12 are my favorite engines, and V-twins are good for motorcycles.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I am not a fan of in-line 4-cylinders because of the inherent vibrations those engines have, and I also do not like the sound of them. .
Click to expand...

Ah, the Caterham sound: intake rush via dual DCOE40 Webers and exhaust not far behind my left ear...what could be better?
 
wrbix said:
Ah, the Caterham sound: intake rush via dual DCOE40 Webers and exhaust not far behind my left ear...what could be better?
Click to expand...

That is a fair point. The best 4-cylinder I've ever driven was in a TR3 with twin DCOEs on it. And it was very good.

But still, I'm building the Cobra. If I built something like a Caterham, it would probably be a C-type or D-type replica with a Jag XK engine and triple DCOEs.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
For me it's not about strict power output, it's about the visceral qualities. I am not a fan of in-line 4-cylinders because of the inherent vibrations those engines have, and I also do not like the sound of them.
Click to expand...

I love the sound of V-8's but also love the sound of a properly tuned 4 cylinder engine as well. Badly tuned and executed 4-cylinders, though, sound really bad. (GM Iron Duck, anyone?)
 
Bill Jennings said:
I love the sound of V-8's but also love the sound of a properly tuned 4 cylinder engine as well. Badly tuned and executed 4-cylinders, though, sound really bad. (GM Iron Duck, anyone?)
Click to expand...

I've owned a lot of 4-cylinder motorcycles, and really none of them have been great sound wise. But as I just noted, yeah, the TR3's engine did sound very good.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I've owned a lot of 4-cylinder motorcycles, and really none of them have been great sound wise. But as I just noted, yeah, the TR3's engine did sound very good.
Click to expand...

Well, that's interesting, to compare cars and bikes. I like good 4-cyl engines in cars, but don't like them in bikes. I like the 2.0 Eco in the Fusion, Ford has a really nice engine here. Quiet and smooth, but what you do hear sounds sophisticated and nice, and it has plenty of power. That Fusion is far faster than it need to be. And it goes without saying that the 1.6 Turbo in our Civic Si is really nice, Honda knows how to produce good 4-cyl engines as well as nice good shifting manual gear boxes.

But bikes, nope. Too smooth, too refined, too peaky, just not my cuppa Joe. I'm a big fan of twins for bikes, love the feel, love the vibes, love the power delivery. That said, way back I owned a GL1500 that I had great fun with, so there's no doubt another flat-6 bike in my future. I'm thinking a Goldwing in retirement for when the wife wants to ride with, and keep the BMW R1200GS for solo riding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top