What does the Lindle crash mean for Cirrus??

[ScottM]

Cirrus has been getting a lot of press about accident that occur with their planes. Some of it unfair, some of it just because of the parachute. Now with Lindle's high profile crash I am sure there will be more focus on Cirrus. I already read an article where the reporter talked of the 'unused parachute' in his plane.

With a high profile pilot such as Lindle there is bound to be some recriminations and lawsuits. Some of those will be directed at Cirrus. Fair or not Cirrus will have to deal with this as these suits pop up. I was thinking last night I wonder what this will mean to the inovating company of Cirrus. This is the type of thing that could stifle their risk taking. Perhaps even put them out of business.

We may even see some lawsuits directed at Garmin. Remember that story on a previous thread about the G1000 crashing because of a fuel transducer error? http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9916&highlight=fuel+g1000

Well one of the early reports about this crash were talking about a mayday and report of a fuel problem. What if it was somethign similiar and both the pilot and CFI became distracted to the point of forgeting to fly the airplane?

I don't know but there is going to be fallout from this in the aviation industry for sure.

 

[bbchien]

It is simply an inherent problem of a high performance aircraft marketed to step-up pilots....

Go for the river, Luke!

 

[infotango]

Aircraft and aircraft parts makers get sued all the time for crashes. That's why they carry liability insurance. I think that the bigger effects of this are going to be felt by the inevitable crackdown on GA flights over and around NYC. Pataki was quoted in last night's NY Times as supporting the TFR (I don't think he realized the very limited extent of it), and requesting that NYC receive the same protections as DC. Hopefully Bloomberg, who is a pilot, will fight that hairbrained idea.
It is a bit morbid, but I feel that the famous nature of the victim in this case may help to take some of the heat off the GA community, for now, at least.

 

[Anthony]

It is a bit morbid, but I feel that the famous nature of the victim in this case may help to take some of the heat off the GA community, for now, at least.

I agree. Also, maybe Bloomberg can influenc Governor "what my pants" that an FRZ over New York isn't necessary.

Bruce is right on. Its not about the desing of the Cirrus that is dangerous, its to who and how they market the design.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Short answer: Nothing unusual.

 

[Henning]

It is simply an inherent problem of a high performance aircraft marketed to step-up pilots....

Go for the river, Luke!

I don't really think so. I think it's more a problem inherent in a system that fails to teach decision making, and the problem is based on the whole "Instructor as First Job". I think there may also in this case be a corollary with "We don't need to teach spins anymore". We teach rules and numbers and technology now. We teach how to use resources to get out of a situation rather than teaching decision making to not get into that situation to begin with. The USAF & NATO Airforces start em out in a T-37 and transitions them into a T-38 in less hours than this guy had. Heck, they strap on an F-15 with just over 100hrs. Why can they get away with that? Because they have a completely different approach to instructing and operating aircraft, so the problem obviously isn't inherent to the meager comparitive performance of an SR-20. Besides, they do abinitio training from day one in the SR-20, in those instances it wouldn't even be a step up aircraft. I think that the style and system of instruction is what causes most of these types of accidents. Anyone who knows how to make a proper aviation decision can look at the East River Corridor and see that it isn't suitable for a land plane and can only really safely be used by helicopters and sea planes due to the lack of options. But we don't teach to look for options and make decissions based on those options do we. It's funny, we teach from the very beginning to "Always look for your emergency landing spot" but we don't teach "If there is no suitable emergency landing spot DON'T GO THERE!"

 

[Bill]

Bruce is right on. Its not about the desing of the Cirrus that is dangerous, its to who and how they market the design.

After reading a little about this fellow (God rest his soul), it seems that he loved gambling, and loved taking risks. My initial gut check (right or wrong) is JFK JR syndrom, more plane than brain.

 

[wsuffa]

Fox news, last night, had a tort lawyer on talking about how the family would sue "everybody they could", including the manufacturers, flight instructors, and the mechanics. Given the value of Lidel, this would amount to "lots and lots of money".

The Fox talking heads squealed with approval....

And we wonder why GA is so expensive.

 

[Bill]

Given the value of Lidel, this would amount to "lots and lots of money".

Then he should have provided his next of kin with a sufficient life insurance policy. The lack of personal responsibility is killing America.

 

[AdamZ]

Ya know I think the high profile of this case is makeing me look at it and the press and even us pilots a bit more closely. I mean here we are slamming various media out lets for stupid comments and sensationalizing the event and at the same time we have NO FREAKING clue what happend.

Its in our nature to analyize accidents to be safer. In many we can take a pretty accurate stab at it off the bat. 70hr PPL with a ticket not 5 months wet crashes, we know the wx is 040@25 900Bkn 1500 ovc we can accuratly theorized VFR into IMC. 172 over the Alleghneys in IMC in March at 8K crashes ... pretty good chance its Iceing.

But here we are guessing absloutly guessing and who what where, who's gonna get sued whos gonna pay whos fault. One report has him taking a tour of Manhatten on has him on his way to Nashville,some have him making distress calls some not. He had a CFI with him was it IR training, who was PIC? who the heck knows.

Speculation here is nuts, Illness, engine failure, VFR into IMC, Control Surface failure, Vacum failure are just some POTENTIAL causes.

FWIW I agree for the most part with Henning and would only add to Bruces comment that Cirrus in this instance was not a step up plane unless Lidel acquired and amazing amount of time in his short time as a PP it would be more of a "Start Up Plane"

 

[Anthony]

Ya know I think the high profile of this case is makeing me look at it and the press and even us pilots a bit more closely. I mean here we are slamming various media out lets for stupid comments and sensationalizing the event and at the same time we have NO FREAKING clue what happend.

Adam, I know EXACTLY what happened. A small plane hit a building, bounced off, caused a fire and the only deaths were the two occupants of the plane who knew the risks. Other than that I don't really care. I don't need to know how it happened, I only know its causing our costs to go up and our freedoms to go down.

 

[jason]

From MSNBC.com: "The Cirrus SR20 was manufactured in 2002 and purchased earlier this year, Hersman said. The small aircraft has four seats and is equipped with a parachute designed to let it float to earth in case of a mishap. The parachute apparently did not engage after the crash."

 

[Skip Miller]

Adam, I know EXACTLY what happened.

I know EXACTLY what happened, too.

It's the dreaded Downwind Turn that got 'em.

I think I'll leak that one to the media. Let's see how far we can get it to go!

-Skip

 

[ScottM]

I know EXACTLY what happened, too.

It's the dreaded Downwind Turn that got 'em.

I think I'll leak that one to the media. Let's see how far we can get it to go!

-Skip

Skip are you sure about that one? I thought it was two things. First he did not file a VFR flight plan and second he failed to make the radio call "any buildings in the area please advise".

 

[bobloblaw310]

This accident was unfortunate to say the least. The investigators will try to determine the cause of the accident using radar track, wreckage, and witness information. It will most likely be attributed to pilot error. I feel the plane stalled while trying to make the 180 back down the river. Here is a quote from the instructor Tyler Stanger. In a 2004 article in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Stanger said that flying is very safe. "The most dangerous part about flying is the drive to the airport," he said. "It's a wing. It's very safe. It's the wing that flies, it's not the engine."

Seems to me that he didn't heed his own words.

 

[ScottM]

Well the premise of my post is that the survivors will blame the advanced avionics, design, etc. for the accident. There will likely be allegations that the parachute failed too. When this occurs it will be interesting to see how Garmin and Cirrus respond. By that I do not mean with their court room defense but rather how it will affect their ability to improve the product. I'll bet that Cessna is watching this very closely as they move ever nearer to having a carbon piston single and their current usuage of G1000s.

But I have no clue as to what caused the accident and I am not trying to affix blame. Just making an observation of what may occur int he aftermath of this incident.

 

[bobloblaw310]

Well the premise of my post is that the survivors will blame the advanced avionics, design, etc. for the accident. There will likely be allegations that the parachute failed too. When this occurs it will be interesting to see how Garmin and Cirrus respond. By that I do not mean with their court room defense but rather how it will affect their ability to improve the product. I'll bet that Cessna is watching this very closely as they move ever nearer to having a carbon piston single and their current usuage of G1000s.

But I have no clue as to what caused the accident and I am not trying to affix blame. Just making an observation of what may occur int he aftermath of this incident.

Thankfully the law passed in 1997 will prevent the manufacturer from being sued for atleast 18 years after the date the plane was built. This kind of reminds me of the wife who sued Cessna after her husband flew a perfectly good plane into a mouintain in clear weather. Cessna never claimed their planes can move mountains, but nontheless they lost the suit.

 

[infotango]

Thankfully the law passed in 1997 will prevent the manufacturer from being sued for atleast 18 years after the date the plane was built. This kind of reminds me of the wife who sued Cessna after her husband flew a perfectly good plane into a mouintain in clear weather. Cessna never claimed their planes can move mountains, but nontheless they lost the suit.

I think you have it backwards, GARA prevents the manufacturer from being sued AFTER the plane is 18 years old. And it was passed in 1994.
And as for your story, I strongly doubt that a court of law found Cessna liable for the accident, although Cessna might have settled the case for some nuisance value. There certainly a whole bunch of BS claims made against aircraft makers.
GARA is a mixed bag, it protects manufactures but it leaves more vulnerable FBO's and maintenance providers in a very weak position.

 

[ScottM]

Thankfully the law passed in 1997 will prevent the manufacturer from being sued for atleast 18 years after the date the plane was built.

Not at all and it was 1994, I believe the law is that plane manufacturers cannot have limitations to their liability for aircraft they built that are 18years old. The Cirrus is not covered by this law as it is under 18 years old.

That is what the [SIZE=-1]General Aviation Revitalization Act states.
http://avstop.com/History/NeedRegulations/Act1994.html
[/SIZE]

 

[bobloblaw310]

I think you have it backwards, GARA prevents the manufacturer from being sued AFTER the plane is 18 years old. And it was passed in 1994.
And as for your story, I strongly doubt that a court of law found Cessna liable for the accident, although Cessna might have settled the case for some nuisance value. There certainly a whole bunch of BS claims made against aircraft makers.
GARA is a mixed bag, it protects manufactures but it leaves more vulnerable FBO's and maintenance providers in a very weak position.

Yeah, I do have it backwards.

 

[infotango]

GARA is a federal statute of repose, which means that when the aircraft is of a certain age (18 years) or greater at the time of the crash, you CANNOT sue the manufacturer, or any of the parts makers. (assuming those parts are older than 18 years too). So if Cessna gets sued by somebody who was injured in a plane crash that was 20 years old at the time of the crash, Cessna can move to dismiss the case before it even goes to trail.
There are a few exceptions, such as for fraud by the manufacturer when originally certifying the airplane.

Not at all and it was 1994, I believe the law is that plane manufacturers cannot have limitations to their liability for aircraft they built that are 18years old. The Cirrus is not covered by this law as it is under 18 years old.

That is what the [SIZE=-1]General Aviation Revitalization Act states.
http://avstop.com/History/NeedRegulations/Act1994.html
[/SIZE]

 

[Skip Miller]

Skip are you sure about that one? I thought it was two things. First he did not file a VFR flight plan and second he failed to make the radio call "any buildings in the area please advise".

Can we agree, then, that it wasn't the Oscillation of Doom?

-Skip

 

[tonycondon]

I dont know skip, that is quite an assumption, i dont think you can ever count out the oscillation of doom for ANYTHING!

 

[wesleyj]

It is the buildings fault and the fault of the tenents in the apartments that were struck, they were impedeing his ability to aviate freely, sue them.

 

[cwyckham]

Well, the idiocy of jurors notwithstanding, I can't see how Cirrus or Garmin could possibly hold any liability here. Even if the Garmin started playing old episodes of the Simpsons in mid flight, the pilots certainly could have gone to the backup gauges, or even in a real emergency looked out of the window. I don't see how you can blame the system for the pilots decision to become distracted by a fault (if there was a fault).

As far as the airframe itself is concerned, barring something like a control surface failure due to negligent quality control, how can Cirrus be blamed for somebody flying into a building? Even if the engine quit, the avionics quit, and the parachute failed to deploy, the pilots most likely would have survived a ditching in the river.

Chris

 

[Tim]

It is the buildings fault and the fault of the tenents in the apartments that were struck, they were impedeing his ability to aviate freely, sue them.

John is right they need to outlaw anything over two stories.

Cirrus will be bought by google and they will buy the legal outfits that come after them. Sue the building owners and win!

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Watch CBS Evening News Thursday night: Boyer took them flying:

AOPA Story

Thursday morning, AOPA President Phil Boyer appeared live on CNN's American Morning to be interviewed by anchor Miles O'Brien, a pilot and AOPA member.

Speaking from AOPA's headquarters in Frederick, Maryland, via the association's TV studio and satellite uplink, Boyer told the TV audience that a car or a truck would be a much more effective terrorist weapon than a small aircraft. "No small plane has been used as a weapon of terror," Boyer said.

Then a few hours later, Boyer took CBS correspondent Bob Orr and camera team flying in Boyer's Cessna 172, to help him understand VFR flight from a nontowered airport, air traffic control airspace such as the Class B surrounding both New York and Washington, D.C., and security airspace like the Washington, D.C., Air Defense Identification Zone (which encompasses all of the Class B airspace and then some and has an internal "no fly" zone within 15 miles of Washington).

Orr's story should air on the CBS Evening News Thursday evening. Taking on USA Today...

 

[Michael]

After reading a little about this fellow (God rest his soul), it seems that he loved gambling, and loved taking risks. My initial gut check (right or wrong) is JFK JR syndrom, more plane than brain.

Sounds pretty bright to me. everything this young man tried he suceeded at. My friends knew him personally and say he was a class act. down to earth, intellegent and generous. Most poker players, MLB players, and Pilots arnt dumb. combine the three and you have a pretty good chance the kid had his head on straight.

 

[markb5900]

After reading the 25+ posts here and a large amount are joking about this crash. I find it really pretty sad that we must joke about two dead people no matter what caused it.
There is a loss of human life, maybe we should all just take a step back and thank a higher power that it wasn't us (since some us seem to think we are perfect) and pray for the families of those that lost life in this tragedy.

Mark B

 

[Michael]

Seems to me that he didn't heed his own words.

How do you know? Sheesh this is disturbing.

 

[AdamZ]

Lidel played here in Philly, the press here has only had good things to say about him. They have described him a lot like anyone of us. A good friend and pleasant guy to be around with an obession for flying ( which he loved to share), just a guy who always took time for others. I bet he would have fit in right here on this board.

 

[poadeleted20]

Heck, they strap on an F-15 with just over 100hrs.

No, they don't. Every pilot goes through 25-40 hours in the pre-UPT screening program, and UPT is over 200 hours. So 250, maybe, but not 100.

Why can they get away with that?

Because they are very selective in who they accept, and then require them to devote 100% of their time for a year to get those wings, and have no qualms about axing those who aren't making progress per the schedule. And then, they only fly under the direct supervision of a more experienced pilot, either as a co-pilot in tanker/transport/bomber aircraft or a wingman in fighters, for the first year or so, and that only after six months of training in their operational aircraft on top of UPT.

 

[rcaligan]

No, they don't. Every pilot goes through 25-40 hours in the pre-UPT screening program, and UPT is over 200 hours. So 250, maybe, but not 100.

Because they are very selective in who they accept, and then require them to devote 100% of their time for a year to get those wings, and have no qualms about axing those who aren't making progress per the schedule. And then, they only fly under the direct supervision of a more experienced pilot, either as a co-pilot in tanker/transport/bomber aircraft or a wingman in fighters, for the first year or so, and that only after six months of training in their operational aircraft on top of UPT.

They have FAIPs, too.

 

[ApacheBob]

After reading a little about this fellow (God rest his soul), it seems that he loved gambling, and loved taking risks. My initial gut check (right or wrong) is JFK JR syndrom, more plane than brain.

Sounds right. But I admire that he wanted to see the Statue of Liberty.
ApacheBob

 

[Henning]

No, they don't. Every pilot goes through 25-40 hours in the pre-UPT screening program, and UPT is over 200 hours. So 250, maybe, but not 100.

Because they are very selective in who they accept, and then require them to devote 100% of their time for a year to get those wings, and have no qualms about axing those who aren't making progress per the schedule. And then, they only fly under the direct supervision of a more experienced pilot, either as a co-pilot in tanker/transport/bomber aircraft or a wingman in fighters, for the first year or so, and that only after six months of training in their operational aircraft on top of UPT.

No sir, those times have changed according to the guys I know who went through Sheppard. As for the cut em if they can't hack it, that's still around as is the intense and dedicated training regime which is what I was referring to. My arguement is we've dumbed down the field to get people involved who shouldn't be. Flame me for saying it, but I look around at what goes on, and can't see it being wrong. I know plenty of guys who left Sheppard AFB training both US & European. My buddy who graduated from there was asking my opinion on where to go, F-15s, F-16s or A-10s (my comment BTW was the A-10 because I thought they had the most important roll, close air support), he chose F-16s and he went straight there. Same for the NATO guys I came to know. They may have been near 200, but I recalled them saying 125. The point really is they STARTED in T-37s, and you have to admit, that's a hell of a lot more aircraft than an SR-20.

 

[infotango]

No sir, those times have changed according to the guys I know who went through Sheppard. As for the cut em if they can't hack it, that's still around as is the intense and dedicated training regime which is what I was referring to. My arguement is we've dumbed down the field to get people involved who shouldn't be. Flame me for saying it, but I look around at what goes on, and can't see it being wrong. I know plenty of guys who left Sheppard AFB training both US & European. My buddy who graduated from there was asking my opinion on where to go, F-15s, F-16s or A-10s (my comment BTW was the A-10 because I thought they had the most important roll, close air support), he chose F-16s and he went straight there. Same for the NATO guys I came to know. They may have been near 200, but I recalled them saying 125. The point really is they STARTED in T-37s, and you have to admit, that's a hell of a lot more aircraft than an SR-20.

With proper training and a good attitude towards learning, almost anybody is capable of flying almost anything. Certainly anything in the GA environment.
Budd Davisson goes on and on about how he can teach 100 hour ppl's how to fly and land a Pitts s-2 safely in about 8 hours. A S-2 is also a hell of a lot more aircraft than a SR-20.

Again this is with proper training and that attitude, but I really don't think that there is a single pilot out there who cannot taught to properly and safely fly an SR-20. I don't think that a few hundred hours of droning around in a 172 makes that much a difference in flying higher performance aircraft.
While I'm not really a Cirrus guy (I'm more of the stick and rudder, fabric plane type person) I think Cirrus has gotten an unfair bit rap lately.
IIRC the majority of SR accidents lately have been a result of a pilots trying to over extend their airplanes, (i.e. inadvertent flight into IMC, inadvertent icing and goofing IFR procedures) not failures in basic airmanship. Those pilots would have killed themselves had they been flying dirt simple PA-28-140's as well.
There is nothing wrong with Cirrius' attitude, provided those pilots are receiving the training that they need. And they approach flying with the respect it warrants.

 

[Bill]

Sounds pretty bright to me. everything this young man tried he suceeded at. My friends knew him personally and say he was a class act. down to earth, intellegent and generous. Most poker players, MLB players, and Pilots arnt dumb. combine the three and you have a pretty good chance the kid had his head on straight.

Not saying dumb, JFK JR wasn't dumb, just poor judgement. But I did read a piece where he took a sports writer up in a plane and scared the man half to death. So, if the article is correct, history of hotdogging.

 

[Michael]

Not saying dumb, JFK JR wasn't dumb, just poor judgement. But I did read a piece where he took a sports writer up in a plane and scared the man half to death. So, if the article is correct, history of hotdogging.

well if you read an article, it must be true.
Look, i know you dont mean harm, but you dont know the facts. how irresponcible was he for flying when and where he was? well he took his CFI for crying out loud. thats what were taught to do when we are uncomfortable or unfamilliar. That was a good call in my book. we dont know what happened. period. I didnt hear anyone saying these kinda things about doc or any of the other airshow pilots, who obviously took risks. their mistakes we can let slide.

 

[Bill]

well if you read an article, it must be true.
Look, i know you dont mean harm, but you dont know the facts.

True, we don't know all the facts. I'll just shut the hell up for now.

 

[poadeleted20]

No sir, those times have changed according to the guys I know who went through Sheppard.

Your information is inaccurate. Nobody starts in the Tweet unless they skip IFS (Introductory Flight Screening at Colorado Springs -- 25 hours of flight training) because they already have a PPL. If you're talking about JUPT at Sheppard, the program includes 90 hours in Primary (T-6, T-34C, or T-37), and 120 hours in the T-38 in Advanced for those going to fighters. The airlift/tanker and turboprop transport tracks include 105 and 115 hours in Advanced. That's over 220 hours of flight training before being sent to an F-15 RTU.