SR-22 Fatal Crash at Faribault, MN

[Ted]

So if a guy shows up at the Porsche dealer ready to write the $100,000 check or put it on his Black American Express card, the dealer should say, "Sorry. I can only let you buy the VW Cabrio."?

Actually, that's prolly not a bad idea.

Well, this is how guys like me can go out and buy these nice cars for pennies on the dollar. When my Jaguar XJS V12 was new back in 1992 it cost somewhere in the $50-60k range (figure closer to $100k when adjusted for inflation in today's dollars), and I was 8 years old and going "Ooh... shiny...". A bunch of rich folk who don't know the difference between an open end wrench and a welder were kind enough to buy the car, absorb the depreciation, keep it in mint condition, and then sell it to me for about the same price as a new bottom-of-the-line Kia when I bought it last year. One of them was even kind enough to have the TH400 automatic ripped out and put in a 5-speed manual. Great decision on his part!

The same goes for Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Porsches, BMWs, Mercedes, and any other high end car, or airplane. Rich people can afford them. We can't. But they will absorb the depreciation and eventually we might be able to buy them at a reasonable cost. How many of those people are actual drivers? My cousin went out and bought a Mercedes SL550 about a year ago - $100k car. One day, someone else who's knows a steering wheel from a shifter (my cousin sure doesn't) will buy the car.

For those of us who aren't affluent enough to be able to go out and buy these new planes, it should be important to us to see companies making nice planes sell them to people who can afford them. It both keeps the industry alive and preserves these planes for us to buy at a later point in time. C'mon, who amongst us wouldn't want a Columba? And who amongst us want the Columba, but can probably more realistically afford an early Mooney or V-tail Bonanza.

The problem comes in when rich people buy these planes as transportation, but then exercise poor judgement in how to use that transport. They probably are competent enough pilots so long as they're flying on nice days with little to no winds, etc., and would probably be fine in those conditions even in a more forgiving plane. 172 comes to mind there, and I certainly can't afford $230,000 for a new one of those.

I don't want these rich people to stop buying the planes (or cars), because then in 20 years they won't be around for me to buy. What I do want is for them to be great pilots, so that they won't crash the plane before I have a chance to buy it.

 

[Bill]

So if a guy shows up at the Porsche dealer ready to write the $100,000 check or put it on his Black American Express card, the dealer should say, "Sorry. I can only let you buy the VW Cabrio."?

Europe uses graduated licensing for motorcycles. You must ride and learn on the small ones before you ca go out and buy that 186mph Hayabusa road missle.

I think it would be a fine idea here, as well.

 

[tdager]

Europe uses graduated licensing for motorcycles. You must ride and learn on the small ones before you ca go out and buy that 186mph Hayabusa road missle.

I think it would be a fine idea here, as well.

And on many motorcycle message boards there is a growing desire to see something done along the same lines.

People are just tired of scrapping up 18-year old people that can buy a motorcycle that is faster than most of our planes for $12K and killing themselves.

 

[jesse]

Because there were over 42,000 C-172's produced and less than 3000 SR's. If we had the same percentage of the 172 fleet involved in fatal crashes as Cirrus in those five years, there would have been over 350 fatal 172 crashes. Likewise, if the Cirri were experiencing fatals at the same rate as the 172, there would have been les than 10, not 25, fatal Cirrus accidents. Considering the way the Cirrus is equipped (state of the art avionics plus BRS), the Cirrus should have a lower rate, not one two and a half times greater. That suggests there is a serious problem in the Cirrus community. In my opinion, based on review of the accidents and having flown the plane, the only component which could be causing this is the nut that holds the control stick.

That said, the fact that this is only the second fatal SR accident in eleven months this year compared to 10 fatals last year suggests the Cirrus community is getting a handle on the problems.

Like I said above. I know that there are more 172s in the air..I'm not sure that Cirrus can completely fix this problem. They need to sell airplanes to build airplanes. They need to sell to improve safety. Does it surprise you that inexperienced pilots buying 170 knot airplanes and running on autopilot 99% of the time tend to crash?

If you rent 172s and the weather falls apart...Oh well. The problem is when you spend half a million dollars on an airplane with the justification that it's going to be safer and capable of making more flights--you are bound to want to get your money's worth right into the grave.

 

[bbchien]

Like I said above. I know that there are more 172s in the air..I'm not sure that Cirrus can completely fix this problem. They need to sell airplanes to build airplanes. They need to sell to improve safety. Does it surprise you that inexperienced pilots buying 170 knot airplanes and running on autopilot 99% of the time tend to crash?

If you rent 172s and the weather falls apart...Oh well. The problem is when you spend half a million dollars on an airplane with the justification that it's going to be safer and capable of making more flights--you are bound to want to get your money's worth right into the grave.

Singing to the choir.....

 

[DeeG]

And on many motorcycle message boards there is a growing desire to see something done along the same lines.

People are just tired of scrapping up 18-year old people that can buy a motorcycle that is faster than most of our planes for $12K and killing themselves.

While I would dearly LOVE to see it, it ain't gonna happen here.

Can you imagine the average HD buyer (mid 50's, male, a bit overweight, trying to find a bike that will impress his buddies) being restricted to a sub 250cc bike for the first six-twelve months?

 

[PittsDriver]

Ya know, aircraft can be simple or complicated, fast or slow, responsive/twitchy or stable, or a bunch of other things. But the last time I checked, it was a pilot, acting as PIC, that makes the decision to fly it in the accident weather and in the accident state of mind and health and currency. We might all know pilots that we might say "are an accident waiting to happen." IMHO, only two things cause that to be - bad instruction and a failure to understand that flying is unforgiving of hubris. To say that a particular design of airplane is more accident prone might be true but smells of "sue McDonalds because I burned myself on their hot coffee" mentality. A PIC still decided to fly it that day.

 

[AWACSEng]

For those of us who aren't affluent enough to be able to go out and buy these new planes, it should be important to us to see companies making nice planes sell them to people who can afford them. It both keeps the industry alive and preserves these planes for us to buy at a later point in time. C'mon, who amongst us wouldn't want a Columba? And who amongst us want the Columba, but can probably more realistically afford an early Mooney or V-tail Bonanza.

The problem comes in when rich people buy these planes as transportation, but then exercise poor judgement in how to use that transport. They probably are competent enough pilots so long as they're flying on nice days with little to no winds, etc., and would probably be fine in those conditions even in a more forgiving plane. 172 comes to mind there, and I certainly can't afford $230,000 for a new one of those.

I don't want these rich people to stop buying the planes (or cars), because then in 20 years they won't be around for me to buy. What I do want is for them to be great pilots, so that they won't crash the plane before I have a chance to buy it.

The problem is, we can't buy 'em in nice condition if they've all been augered in by stick actuators with good cash flow.

 

[W. Stewart]

I agree with much of what has been written in this thread. I have 900 hours, mostly in Cessna products (primarily the 177RG the last 6 years), and am looking at buying a (used) SR-22, so I have gone and had a couple of lessons in one. The landing attitude is very different: in the 177, one flairs once to stop the decent, then raises the nose a bit and to let the plane settle onto the runway. In the Cirrus, I was cautioned about striking the tail doing this--they really want you to fly it onto the runway in a flat attitude. It is different, but learnable. I have not yet tried any significant crosswind landings.

It is really an interesting problem that exists, with a fast capable airplane being bought and flown by new pilots. I am sure it is similar to the Bonanza back in the 50's and 60's. One does not buy such a plane to go around and around the pattern, but obviously a beginner needs landing practice. Its mission profile is very different than that of a 172, so it is not possible to compare the accident types and rates to the 172. One should try to compare the accidents to other high-performance cross-country machines. I would think that accidents in such planes would be skewed toward weather-related events and engine stoppages, and the parachute should help in those types of situations.

I think that the successful executive type person who is new to flying and buys a plane for cross-country travel is going to be hard to convince to go and fly the pattern frequently, but unfortunately, when one uses the plane for travel rather than practice, landings are few and far between.

I do hope that if I do end up in a Cirrus and for some reason become an accident statistic that the board here will not speak too poorly of me!

Wells

 

[KennyFlys]

I think that the successful executive type person who is new to flying and buys a plane for cross-country travel is going to be hard to convince to go and fly the pattern frequently, but unfortunately, when one uses the plane for travel rather than practice, landings are few and far between.

I think you do hit on a significant problem. Many who move up to their achieved level of aircraft tend to cease to improve proficiency. They don't intend to move into a larger and/or faster aircraft so they don't do anything to prepare for it. Just as bad, they don't do anything to remain prepared for their existing aircraft. They barely remain legally current and usually skirt the edge of the FARs on that.

Looking back, that's been the impression and representation in a couple accident reports I read.

 

[poadeleted20]

In the Cirrus, I was cautioned about striking the tail doing this--they really want you to fly it onto the runway in a flat attitude.

Don't take this too far. My SR22 client had a bad habit off landing so flat that the slightest error nose-down resulted in the nosewheel hitting first -- which leads to a porpoise that Grumman pilots are trained to avoid. The good landing attitude in the Cirrus is still slightly tail-low, touching down on "mains first."

I do hope that if I do end up in a Cirrus and for some reason become an accident statistic that the board here will not speak too poorly of me!

The big difference between you, Wells, and those other Cirrus buyers of whom you spoke is your years of other flying experience, which your posts here suggest have taught you caution about conditions and developed good aeronautical decision-making skills.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Don't take this too far. My SR22 client had a bad habit off landing so flat that the slightest error nose-down resulted in the nosewheel hitting first -- which leads to a porpoise that Grumman pilots are trained to avoid. The good landing attitude in the Cirrus is still slightly tail-low, touching down on "mains first."

You are correct... I think the Cirrus instructors just say it that way 'cuz most pilots aren't used to the sloped cowl. It just *looks* flat.

 

[bbchien]

Well I have about three hours in a -20. NOT MUCH. But you land it like a twin- you have to fly it on (natural for me...!). Mains first, of course. No full stall landings unless you want to do work on the tail.

This sting is about judgement, that ephemeral thing that you get just after you needed it. Some people can acquire it, some cannot. To corrupt a quote from Potter Stewart, "I can't define bad judgement, but I know bad judgement when I see it"

 

[Formula4G]

"...failure to maintain direction control". The glass screen in the G3 does NOT assist you with either stick and rudder, or judgement issues.[/quote]...

And it doesn't help with a cockpit full of screeming scared teenagers either.
Remember... always blame the pilot

Not that I have a clue

 

[Formula4G]

While I would dearly LOVE to see it, it ain't gonna happen here.

Can you imagine the average HD buyer (mid 50's, male, a bit overweight, trying to find a bike that will impress his buddies) being restricted to a sub 250cc bike for the first six-twelve months?

Mid 50's; bought my first HD in '76, rode first in '66... have done 0-60 in 2.5 seconds. Point is, you don't know it until you've done it; the "mid-life" guys haven't done it. I see a lot of 2 and 3 year old harleys for sale with less than 1000 miles and the idiots think they can get new pricing for them. The sad thing is, there are other mid 50's never done that idiots that will pay it.

:-( so sad so sad, but that's life, bikes, cars, and planes.

 

[bbchien]

"...failure to maintain direction control". The glass screen in the G3 does NOT assist you with either stick and rudder, or judgement issues.

And it doesn't help with a cockpit full of screeming scared teenagers either.
Remember... always blame the pilot

Not that I have a clue

Well, to be gruesome, JFK Jr. likely had a cabin of screaming women....and that was without a glass screen. But it's either the pilot or the airplane. And I don't think anyone thinks it was the airplane.

 

[KennyFlys]

The type of instrumentation in any format is irrelevant if the person interpreting them is incompetent or extremely lacking in proficiency. This would apply to most accidents affected by attitude control whether in IMC or not.

As has been said by Doc Bruce and others... It's not the airplane. It's the pilot.


Formula, welcome to the board!

 

[KennyFlys]

Another One!

12/01/2007 2134 HENDERSONVILLE, NC 874SR SR22 A DEST 0 AIRCRAFT CRASHED ON LANDING, HENDERSONVILLE, NC

Any news reports on it from the area? Nothing came up with Google.

It appears to be registered with Cirrus Sales out of Miami.
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=874SR

 

[taters]

I feel horrible for the families involved in this crash.

After flying an sr-22 professionaly for the last 500 hours I would conclude,(and dont take this the wrong way) that Cirrus training is poor. They do indeed teach you to do almost everything w. the autopilot like they have no faith in hand-flying IMC. The "lean assist" on the MFD is the biggest bunch of B.S I have ever seen, Its sets the engine up far to rich and you burn about 2 gph that you dont have to. Cirrus is buying the owners of the sr-22 I fly back under the Lemon Law since it has been plauged with many electrical problems since day one. Off to PA-46T school in Jan!

 

[taters]

Don't take this too far. My SR22 client had a bad habit off landing so flat that the slightest error nose-down resulted in the nosewheel hitting first -- which leads to a porpoise that Grumman pilots are trained to avoid. The good landing attitude in the Cirrus is still slightly tail-low, touching down on "mains first."

The big difference between you, Wells, and those other Cirrus buyers of whom you spoke is your years of other flying experience, which your posts here suggest have taught you caution about conditions and developed good aeronautical decision-making skills.

I always land them with 1/2 flaps 85 kts on short final. Lands just like a Cessna 500. I dont think they are any more prone to tail strike than a pa-28 as long as the pilots flying them have a true "feel" for the airplane. I see alot of sr-22 's land on all 3 quite often where I live...I think some of this comes from Cirrus training which I belive to be very questionable in some areas.

 

[Pilawt]

I always land them with 1/2 flaps 85 kts on short final. Lands just like a Cessna 500. I dont think they are any more prone to tail strike than a pa-28 as long as the pilots flying them have a true "feel" for the airplane. I see alot of sr-22 's land on all 3 quite often where I live...I think some of this comes from Cirrus training which I belive to be very questionable in some areas.

I've not flown a Cirrus or anything else with a sidestick, but I was wondering -- does the short "throw" of the sidestick impair the pilot's "feel" of the airplane in flight?

 

[taters]

I've not flown a Cirrus or anything else with a sidestick, but I was wondering -- does the short "throw" of the sidestick impair the pilot's "feel" of the airplane in flight?

I dont think so. The stick is actually pretty touchy yet firm. In fact I would say the movements you make on the stick are very close to what you would make on a yoke. I "picked it up" almost instantly and I have never seen anyone that I have let fly "struggle" with the stick. The only thing that is kinda "out there" for some people is the 4-way hat switch which controls the trim. You have to trim the ailerons quite a bit on final if there is some wind.

 

[poadeleted20]

I always land them with 1/2 flaps 85 kts on short final.

The SR22 POH contains the following Caution: "Landings should be made with full flaps. Landings with less than full flaps are recommended only if the flaps fail to deploy or to extend the aircraft’s glide distance due to engine malfunction." This is consistent with the Normal Landing paragraph, which says, "Normal landings are made with full flaps with power on or off." My experience in the airplane has not given me any reason to do otherwise -- what leads you to do it with half?

 

[poadeleted20]

I've not flown a Cirrus or anything else with a sidestick, but I was wondering -- does the short "throw" of the sidestick impair the pilot's "feel" of the airplane in flight?

Ditto Clay -- hasn't bothered me, and I find it a lot more natural than the feel of the F-16 sidestick controller. It's the SR's spring centering and aileron-rudder interconnect which bother me. And this old fighter flyer right is right at home with the 4-way "coolie hat" trim switch.

 

[taters]

The SR22 POH contains the following Caution: "Landings should be made with full flaps. Landings with less than full flaps are recommended only if the flaps fail to deploy or to extend the aircraft’s glide distance due to engine malfunction." This is consistent with the Normal Landing paragraph, which says, "Normal landings are made with full flaps with power on or off." My experience in the airplane has not given me any reason to do otherwise -- what leads you to do it with half?

Give it a try and you will see what I mean, I am fully aware that the POH says to use full flaps and I do use them on short fields. But my normal trips put me on 6000 ft + runways with wind and I have found that the thing greases on and uses about the same or less rollout since you actually get slightly better aerodynamic braking (the plane is not in any kind of dangerous attitude.) Cirrus does provide performance data on landing with half flaps and advises to use less in cross-winds in the POH which does indeed conflict with the normal landing section. .In really gusty cross winds I will use no flaps and 90kts and the plane handles much much better.

 

[poadeleted20]

advises to use less in cross-winds in the POH

Where? From page 4-21, Normal Procedures:

Crosswind Landing

Normal crosswind landings are made with full flaps. Avoid prolonged slips. After touchdown, hold a straight course with rudder and brakes as required. The maximum allowable crosswind velocity is dependent upon pilot capability as well as aircraft limitations. Operation in direct crosswinds of 20 knots has been demonstrated.

...and there is no mention of any alternate crosswind landing techniques anywhere in the POH.

 

[taters]

Where? From page 4-21, Normal Procedures:

...and there is no mention of any alternate crosswind landing techniques anywhere in the POH.

Cirrus POH 4-4

4-4 P/N 13772-001
Section 4 Cirrus Design
Normal Procedures SR22
Airspeeds for Normal Operation
Unless otherwise noted, the following speeds are based on a
maximum weight of 3400 lb. and may be used for any lesser weight.
However, to achieve the performance specified in Section 5 for takeoff
and landing distance, the speed appropriate to the particular weight
must be used.
Takeoff Rotation:
• Normal, Flaps 50%........................................................70 KIAS
• Obstacle Clearance, Flaps 50%....................................78 KIAS
Enroute Climb, Flaps Up:
• Normal ................................................................. 110-120 KIAS
• Best Rate of Climb, SL ................................................101 KIAS
• Best Rate of Climb, 10,000............................................95 KIAS
• Best Angle of Climb, SL.................................................78 KIAS
• Best Angle of Climb, 10,000 ..........................................82 KIAS
Landing Approach:
• Normal Approach, Flaps Up .................................... 90-95 KIAS
• Normal Approach, Flaps 50% ................................. 85-90 KIAS
• Normal Approach, Flaps 100% ............................... 80-85 KIAS​

• Short Field, Flaps 100% (VREF[SIZE=[/FONT]2]) ....................................77 KIAS
[/size]

[SIZE=[/color][/size]

Go-Around, Flaps 50%:​

​

• Full Power......................................................................80 KIAS
Maximum Recommended Turbulent Air Penetration:
• 3400 lb.........................................................................133 KIAS
• 2900 lb.........................................................................123 KIAS
Maximum Demonstrated Crosswind Velocity:
• Takeoff or Landing ........................................................20 Knots
Revision A5​

​

 

[taters]

contradicts page 4-21 in the POH...

 

[poadeleted20]

...but doesn't say anything about crosswinds. In any event, the other portions of the POH make very clear that partial flap landings are only for very specific situations, regardless of whether they publish a speed to use for those situations.

 

[jason]

Sounds like a nice ride, Clay. You'll have to let us know when you have an extra seat.

 

[foka4]

The reason the SR22 tail scrapes on full stall landings is because it's missing a critical component: the tailwheel!

One thing I worry about as a potential future 4th or 5th owner of a Cirrus is a carry-over from the world of sailplanes: most composite aircraft (including the Cirrus) have a limited life airframe, and practically speaking, nobody knows how to fix them if they get a ding. Part of the Cirrus business plan is to have their customers throw their SR away after 10 years and either buy another one or move up to The Jet. The used aircraft market is bad for new aircraft sales.

Frankly, I think in 15 years, after all the cantilever wing spars are cracked, all the pressurized hulls on the old twins are cycled to their limit, and all the tails have fallen off the Bonanzas, we'll all be either flying new aircraft, 172s, or homebuilts. As a relatively young pilot with hopes of flying a whole lot for a long time, it's kind of depressing to see where things are headed.

Of course a flying career isn't an option - in 5 years, all the pros will be Indian immigrants who will be happy to earn the $20K they'll be banking.


m