Video SR22 shooting approaches in fog, icing and heavy snow.

Damn that is a bummer he took it down...I watched it twice lol.
 
CC268 said:
Damn that is a bummer he took it down...I watched it twice lol.
Click to expand...
Is he a member of POA? Seems kind of ironic he took it down shortly after this thread began.
 
Way more gusty than me. I'm in my mid 40s and not invincible anymore. Actually, I was never as invincible as this guy seems to be. I fear that these are the guys who end up in NTSB reports.
 
An interesting video. I'm not IFR rated and would not have left the ground in those conditions. That said even though I am not IFR rated and my plane is not equipped to do so. Would it be worth it for me to study IFR just in case I encounter bad weather?
 
AKBill said:
An interesting video. I'm not IFR rated and would not have left the ground in those conditions. That said even though I am not IFR rated and my plane is not equipped to do so. Would it be worth it for me to study IFR just in case I encounter bad weather?
Click to expand...
I think it makes you a more precise pilot at the expense of some minor degradation of visual skills. I've heard stories that non-current/non-proficient IFR guys fair about as poorly as VFR guys when they inadvertently enter IMC. Of course that is one of those tales that is tough to verify or repudiate.

For me IFR is sorta like riding a bike only a lot more wobbly.
 
He was getting grief in the youtube comments section, nothing really bad, doesn't seem like a bad guy from his comments back. Personally I just can't imagine taking off in that weather for fun. Of course my seventeen year old self probably would have done it in a heartbeat.
 
Does someone here have the YouTube channel for this guy - I can't find it form the deleted video and would like to see some of his other work.
 
I'm sure he's scrubbing his "channel" as we speak..
 
CirrusDriver is his name...I probabaly wouldn't have posted that video myself, but you will always get idiotic comments on YouTube even on mild mannered flights...people always have their two cents.
 
Clark1961 said:
Ummm, didn't see anything about taking off in snow being prohibited.
Click to expand...

The Flight Operations Manual Pg. 3-7: Pilots are prohibited from taking off in an aircraft that has frost, snow, slush, or ice adhering to any external surface.

There must also be at least 5 gallons of TKS fluid between the two tanks before flying. And the ice lights must be operational before any night flying into possible icing conditions.

Cirrus also requires a monthly full-flow check of the FIKI system. The wings must be wet from root to tip. The check costs about 1/2 gallon of TKS fluid and makes a substantial mess.
 
Last edited:
citizen5000 said:
The Flight Operations Manual Pg. 3-7: Pilots are prohibited from taking off in an aircraft that has frost, snow, slush, or ice adhering to any external surface.

There must also be at least 5 gallons of TKS fluid between the two tanks before flying. And the ice lights must be operational before any night flying into possible icing conditions.

Cirrus also requires a monthly full-flow check of the FIKI system. The wings must be wet from root to tip. The check costs about 1/2 gallon of TKS fluid and makes a substantial mess.
Click to expand...
Yes, no snow adhering to the aircraft but that does not prevent one from taking off while it is snowing.
 
creweite said:
When I click on the video in the first post, it tells me that it is private and will not run. How did you folks get round that?
Click to expand...

We saw it before it went private.
 
That's one of those things where even though you have the skills, it's still probably not a good idea.

He could have always pulled the chute I guess.
 
So I've watched a couple of his videos now. Seems like a good kid. His head is in the cockpit too much for vmc but that is common for new instrument pilots I believe. He had a camera out taking pictures when approaching APA which is not something I would suggest for a pilot. A good mentor might help him along in developing good habits. Overall I'd say he is learning the way we all do, by flying. It's just that he's inexperienced in life and hasn't learned to approach things from the cautious side rather than the hold my beer side.
 
At least he was instrument rated unlike these knuckleheads that almost became a smoking hole in the side of a mountain after entering IMC and continuing the flight. Can't believe this one is still up. Jump to 1:08 if you don't want to watch the entire video.


Brian
 
"I'm from the FAA and I'm here to help. Tell me more about braking action was poor."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
deonb said:
The camera probably makes it seem worse than it was. Low light and all.


From the description: "Approach lights are very hard to see due to the camera. Runway came into sight just below 100' AG"
Click to expand...
So unless he saw the terminating bars, he admits to another bust of the regs.
 
Hawker800 said:
"I'm from the FAA and I'm here to help. Tell me more about braking action was poor."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

Braking action was poor, what more is there to say? Not illegal. I have landed with nil braking action, but I had more than enough runway to roll to a stop without brakes. Extenuating circumstances, no wind, it was a long runway, uphill and I had reversible props.
 
It doesn't matter if flight in freezing rain is prohibited in a FIKI Cirrus, because there was no freezing rain. Why does everyone keep bringing it up?
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
So unless he saw the terminating bars, he admits to another bust of the regs.
Click to expand...

Not quite. The red terminating bars do not need to be seen to descend below DA. They only need to be seen to descend below 100 feet. You do not need to see the runway at all to go below that, except that you need the minimum visibility required for the approach but we already discussed that. So his admission is not evidence of busting any reg.

91.175(c)(3)(i): The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.

I think a lot of people confuse the above reg, and think it says that you must see the red terminating bars to descend below DA. That isn't right.
 
Last edited:
He descended below 100ft no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
He descended below 100ft no?
Click to expand...

He said he did not have the runway in sight at that point.

Did he say he did not have the red terminating bars in sight at that point?
 
dmspilot said:
It doesn't matter if flight in freezing rain is prohibited in a FIKI Cirrus, because there was no freezing rain. Why does everyone keep bringing it up?

Icing is caused by supercooled water droplets. Freezing fog is composed of ice crystals—moisture that is already frozen. Ice crystals do not cause structural icing, because ice crystals simply bounce off the airplane. Freezing fog is less likely to cause icing than ordinary fog!

And comparing frozen fog to freezing rain is absurd. Their causes and effects on an aircraft are drastically different.
Click to expand...
Frozen fog is composed of ice crystals. Freezing fog deposits ice on everything.
 
dmspilot said:
Sorry, I was thinking they were synonyms. Post edited.
Click to expand...
A few years back a guy in a Mooney killed himself and his family trying to get into Colorado Springs in freezing fog. The pilot flew B-1s for his day job. In my book freezing fog is known icing and is to be avoided. Other folks may take the risk since maybe they won't be in it very long.
 
flight2000 said:
At least he was instrument rated unlike these knuckleheads that almost became a smoking hole in the side of a mountain after entering IMC and continuing the flight. Can't believe this one is still up. Jump to 1:08 if you don't want to watch the entire video.


Brian
Click to expand...

Just for the record. The pilot in that flight later claimed that the video is CGI and was used by Al Quaeda in an attempt to blackmail him. But Homeland security fixed all that.
 
dmspilot said:
It doesn't matter if flight in freezing rain is prohibited in a FIKI Cirrus, because there was no freezing rain. Why does everyone keep bringing it up?
Click to expand...

The tower gave him weather for some county airport, and that report mentioned freezing rain. But that's not where he was going. It's the word 'freezing' that gets people excited. He was landing in a snow-squall, not something I would do as there is rarely ever a need to do so. Wait two hours and it is going to pass.
 
He was planning to take off again. I don't think that would be prudent without at least an inspection of the plane for airframe ice and a re-fill of the TKS reservoir (he ran it on 'high' on final, I understand it goes through a large amount of fluid on that setting).
 
dmspilot said:
Not quite. The red terminating bars do not need to be seen to descend below DA. They only need to be seen to descend below 100 feet.
Click to expand...
Yes QUITE. He said he didn't see the runway until below 100 feet. That means that if all he had was the lights (without the terminating bars) he busted minimums.

I know how the reg reads. I'm applying what he LITERALLY aid to the situation.

The lights are not sufficient to go below 100. He said he didn't have the runway (and presumably the lighting ON the runway that also counts). If all he had was the approach lights, and not the terminating bars, nor the actual runway or one of the lights on the actual runway, he busted.
 
flyingron said:
Yes QUITE. He said he didn't see the runway until below 100 feet. That means that if all he had was the lights (without the terminating bars) he busted minimums.

I know how the reg reads. I'm applying what he LITERALLY aid to the situation.

The lights are not sufficient to go below 100. He said he didn't have the runway (and presumably the lighting ON the runway that also counts). If all he had was the approach lights, and not the terminating bars, nor the actual runway or one of the lights on the actual runway, he busted.
Click to expand...

The lights alone are sufficient to go below 100 if the red terminating or siderow bars are visible. The red terminating and siderow bars are NOT "ON the runway." They are BEFORE the runway. You can see the red terminating or siderow bars, and not see the runway. It is an error in logic to say otherwise.

There is a problem though. The approach light system for the runway he landed on, MALSR, does not have red terminating or red siderow bars. So the whole argument was over a red herring which you introduced:
flyingron said:
So unless he saw the terminating bars...
Click to expand...

That STILL does not mean it was a bust. He could have had the visual glideslope indicator (PAPI in this case) in sight, for example.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
He was planning to take off again. I don't think that would be prudent without at least an inspection of the plane for airframe ice and a re-fill of the TKS reservoir (he ran it on 'high' on final, I understand it goes through a large amount of fluid on that setting).
Click to expand...

It's at least 1.25 hours on High. Max is usually like 35 minutes. Normal is well over 2 hours
 
flight2000 said:
At least he was instrument rated unlike these knuckleheads that almost became a smoking hole in the side of a mountain after entering IMC and continuing the flight. Can't believe this one is still up. Jump to 1:08 if you don't want to watch the entire video.


Brian
Click to expand...

Holy crap! :eek:
 
Actually the whole flight was done rather well. This was a good confidence builder and the FIKI Cirrus is a very caple aircraft. Keep in mind he had very agreeable conditions free from ice and cloud between layers just immediately above him. It's not like it was solid goo at all altitudes and he had a good alternate of KCLE very close at hand. If things had gotten scary on the approach he could have very easily gotten to where conditions were quite tame.

Also the Cirrus provided him with a wealth of situational awareness tools that I could of only dreamt about back when I was flying bank checks around Wyoming and Utah in the early 90's.

I will add though that I would not have flown a single engine aircraft in those conditions without a BRS. Hoping to breakout in time to conduct a survivable off field landing in those conditions would have been a bit too sporty.
 
Video is back up. Plus he addresses some of the comments over on youtube. I guess the only question I would have for him is if his parents know and understand what he is doing, which while not apparently illegal and not particularly unsafe definitely increases the risk of something bad happening.
 
Here's another old time favorite of mine.....note the response of the SR-22 pilot. :eek:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top