Cirrus Down in TX near the pattern 60R

[M20F]

7 minutes ago, gsengle said:

The issue is the Cirrus has a high rate of stall spin pattern accidents, and the chute is irrelevant in these cases. Moreover maybe the inclusion of the chute lead to a false sense of security in certification.

Between 2001 and May 2014 147 US-registered Cirrus SR22 aircraft crashed, resulting in 122 fatalities.^[46]

In 2011, the accident record of the SR20 and SR22 was the subject of a detailed examination by Aviation Consumer magazine. The review concluded that the series has an overall accident record that is better than average for light aircraft, exceeded only by the Diamond DA40 and DA42. However its fatal accident rate is much worse, at 1.6 per 100,000 flight hours—which places it higher than the United States general aviation rate of 1.2, and higher than the Diamond DA40 (0.35), Cessna 172 (0.45), Diamond DA42 (0.54), Cessna 182 (0.69), and the Cessna 400 (1.0), despite the SR22's full aircraft parachute system.^[47]

By 2014, the accident rate was dramatically reduced to a 2013 fatality rate of 1.01 per 100,000 flight hours. This was attributed to better training, particularly in when to deploy the ballistic parachute system.^[48]

By 2015 the accident rate continued to decrease, with a 2014 fatal rate of .42 per 100,000 flight hours, making it one of the best safety records in the industry. This marked the fewest fatalities in a single year for Cirrus since 2001, and the first year where the number of CAPS deployments (12) exceeded the number of fatal accidents (3).^[49][50][4]

Source

I think (and this is just a feeling, not a fact) that a lot of people with more money than brains bought Cirrus's just like a lot of doctors in the day bought Bonanza's.  You take a poor pilot and put them in any airplane they are going to crash a lot.  Don't stall an airplane and it won't crash.  Cirrus's are nothing special in this regard.

Edited February 29, 2016 by M20F

[gsengle]

I still don't believe all airframes are equal. Some are docile and some will bite. I still don't know from this whether the remedial training addressed airframe or pilot deficiencies.

I'm not saying Mooneys are faultless but there is reason to be concerned about Cirrus.

I also think the bungee trim system doesn't help control feel (aerodynamic loads)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kevinw]

I'm sure many of you have seen this Accident Case Study of a stall/spin of a Cirrus in Florida. 

 

[carl]

The issue is the design and training 

The SR 22 is a super high performance aircraft , My Mooney M 20 E is not.   I offer;

                 wing area             gross wt          wing loading 

SR22            144.9                   3400                 23.6

M Bravo         174.8                   3368                19.3

M 20 E           167                    2575                 15.4

C-172            174                     2300                 13.2

 

If I fly  my E just like a 172 not much happens.

If I fly a SR 22 like a 172 I will stall the wing.

The Sr 22 should be flown more like a jet.

Carl

 

 

[aviatoreb]

3 hours ago, M20F said:

It is always going to flow back to this.  

We can all point to the Colgan incident and dozen's of other 121 incidents with all kinds of technology where accidents happen that we scratch our head at.  When you feel G's in the pattern, in VMC, let go of the stick; add power; and go around.  It is really that simple and if you can't correlate that chain of events into action, then having bitching Betty screaming in your ear probably isn't going to make much of a difference.  

AOA to me is something exceptionally useful to have when in IMC where you can't trust your eyes and the G's.  For VMC though getting into this kind of problem is really related to something else that technology doesn't help.  My opinion, and just in the context of AOA's/Technology not the crash in question.

Did Colgan have envelope protection?  I know they had a stick shaker.   Envelope protection is better.  Isn't envelope protection an electronic friendly CFI to push and keep your airplane in the flying envelope?  I want envelope protection - Avidyne digitial autopilot.

I do have an AOA with a bitchin betty, and I love her.  I love her shrill voice.  I figure 999 days out of 1000 I am good for good reactions based on Gs alone in the pattern but if I have a bad moment and forget, then I like Betty there to say "hey stupid, push the yoke" in here lovely alto.  (Actually she says "getting slow"). Maybe it will help if i screw up - knock on wood.

[M20F]

11 minutes ago, carl said:

If I fly a SR 22 like a 172 I will stall the wing

How so?

[takair]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

Did Colgan have envelope protection?  I know they had a stick shaker.   Envelope protection is better.  Isn't envelope protection an electronic friendly CFI to push and keep your airplane in the flying envelope?  I want envelope protection - Avidyne digitial autopilot.

I do have an AOA with a bitchin betty, and I love her.  I love her shrill voice.  I figure 999 days out of 1000 I am good for good reactions based on Gs alone in the pattern but if I have a bad moment and forget, then I like Betty there to say "hey stupid, push the yoke" in here lovely alto.  (Actually she says "getting slow"). Maybe it will help if i screw up - knock on wood.

As I recall, the captain pulled through the stick pusher.

[Yetti]

I hate commenting since I would hate y'all to speculate on when I screw up.  Navasota is a hop skip and jump from Brenham so this one make me sad.  It is the pop over and do a quick landing in the evening airport.

One story I read was that there was an instructor teaching a primary student stalls in a Cirrus and could not overcome the student doing bad things with the stick.

http://studentpilot.com/interact/forum/showthread.php?39859-Unintentional-spin-in-a-Cirrus

Looks like he bought the plane in Feb of this year.

My understanding is the CFI was really good.

based on the mooney control inputs which are very very small, a large input on the Cirrus stick at the wrong time could be bad.

Maybe the Cirrus is not such a good idea for a primary trainer

 

 

[M20F]

13 minutes ago, Yetti said:

Maybe the Cirrus is not such a good idea for a primary trainer

I would agree but by the same token when people come here and ask is buying an Ovation good to get their PPL in the posts are overwhelmingly yes of course it is.  A complex/high performance plane of any model doesn't make a good trainer in my book, it has nothing to do with a Cirrus specifically. 

I have about 200hrs of SR22 time and it is a certainly a lot easier to land.  The high wing loading makes them a lot more responsive to control inputs than a Mooney (which drives like a dump truck) but it makes them real twitchy when trying to be precise hand flying an ILS where dump truck control is more preferred.  Personally I don't get why people like Cirrus's so much but I also don't get the hate for them either. 

[carl]

1 hour ago, M20F said:

How so?

to be overly simple ,

the 172 stall at 47 kn

the m 20 e 50 kn

the sr22  60 kn 

 

so the sr22 needs to be flown faster in the pattern then a 172 . 

 

thats all im saying 

 

 

[M20F]

4 minutes ago, carl said:

so the sr22 needs to be flown faster in the pattern then a 172 . 

If you fly a SR22 at the same speed as 172 it is going to stall, if you fly your E at the same speed as a 172 it is going to stall as well.  Put any plane in a 60 degree bank close to Vs and yank on the stick and the result is going to be the same as the video KevinW linked.  

An Ovation has a  V_S0 of 59 knots and I really don't think people fly it differently than they do any other Mooney or most other GA planes, just faster.  

[carusoam]

30° Banks are my O's limitation in the pattern.  Otherwise the memory of the stall speed matrix is too large.  

Going fast enough to avoid a stall at a 60° bank, makes it difficult to land in the same county. Lowering the nose improves the stall speed.  Raising the nose is detrimental.

An AOA would be helpful for this.

There are a few Cirrus accidents where the pilot had a hired gun on board...

CFIs aren't free from human limitations either...

 

NYC lost a Yankees player over the East river.  Fully loaded for a cross country trip to California.  CFI onboard.

Cape Cod had a fiery crash at the airport. Husband, wife and CFI on board. AOPA covered the whole story.

 

Things I have learned.  Using time, laws of physics, and human cognition...

1) falling from TPA takes less than 10 seconds.

2) getting the chute deployed has a minimum altitude.  Leaving a lot less than 10 seconds.

3) knowing the stall speed for the various weights of the AC, from lightest to heaviest is a few points.

4) knowing the stall speed for various flap positions adds more data to know.

5) knowing the stall speed for various bank angles, aircraft weights, and flap positions is a full matrix.

6) recognizing the signs and making a decision takes unusually long when there are a few seconds available.

7) Stay coordinated, nose down, gentle banks.  Go around when things aren't right....

God rest these people,

-a-

 

[Bob]

This year I completed training in a Cirrus and have 30hrs in it, not much, but enough to understand the plane.  I see three main things that may contribute to a bad ending in a Cirrus.

1)  They move along fast but also loose speed very fast.  Approaching to land, I had to keep telling myself "nose down".

2)  They fly very smooth, almost too smooth, so it is hard to really feel the plane.  Its is very hard to feel speed changes.

3)  Way too many checklists with way too many lines within each checklist.  The Cirrus training drills in your head to use every checklist, always.  The checklist workload is way too high!

This is what I think happens very often.  So the pilot is behind the plane because it is moving along pretty fast, goes to land, but attempts touchdown late and decides to go around.  He starts climbing then shifts most of the focus on the panel and the balked landing checklist, while still behind the plane, it feels smooth but is loosing speed and the pilot turns downwind.  We all know how it ends!

I bet if the checklists were fewer and shorter by removing the common sense items, the workload would be reduced and fewer stall/spins would happen.  Also if training instructed the pilot to climb out to 1000agl during a go-around it would make for better endings.

I you have never flown a Cirrus, this is what I am taking about.  The Cirrus POH is 516 pages long & for a normal landing, if you don't go-around has 12 checklists with 186 items to check off.

List of all checklists:  Preflight Walk-Around (86 items), Before Engine Start (6 items), Starting Engine (17 items), Before Taxiing (5 items), Before Takeoff (32 items), Takeoff (5 items), Climb (5 items), Cruise (5 items), Descend (6 items), Before Landing (5 items), Balked Landing (5 items), After Landing (6 items), Shutdown (8 items).

In the crash on this thread, I bet the last checklist item that was checked off would give some answers. RIP!

 

[jetdriven]

Just now, Bob said:

This year I completed training in a Cirrus and have 30hrs in it, not much, but enough to understand the plane.  I see three main things that may contribute to a bad ending in a Cirrus.

1)  They move along fast but also loose speed very fast.  Approaching to land, I had to keep telling myself "nose down".

2)  They fly very smooth, almost too smooth, so it is hard to really feel the plane.  Its is very hard to feel speed changes.

3)  Way too many checklists with way too many lines within each checklist.  The Cirrus training drills in your head to use every checklist, always.  The checklist workload is way too high!

This is what I think happens very often.  So the pilot is behind the plane because it is moving along pretty fast, goes to land, but attempts touchdown late and decides to go around.  He starts climbing then shifts most of the focus on the panel and the balked landing checklist, while still behind the plane, it feels smooth but is loosing speed and the pilot turns downwind.  We all know how it ends!

I bet if the checklists were fewer and shorter by removing the common sense items, the workload would be reduced and fewer stall/spins would happen.  Also if training instructed the pilot to climb out to 1000agl during a go-around it would make for better endings.

I you have never flown a Cirrus, this is what I am taking about.  The Cirrus POH is 516 pages long & for a normal landing, if you don't go-around has 12 checklists with 186 items to check off.

List of all checklists:  Preflight Walk-Around (86 items), Before Engine Start (6 items), Starting Engine (17 items), Before Taxiing (5 items), Before Takeoff (32 items), Takeoff (5 items), Climb (5 items), Cruise (5 items), Descend (6 items), Before Landing (5 items), Balked Landing (5 items), After Landing (6 items), Shutdown (8 items).

In the crash on this thread, I bet the last checklist item that was checked off would give some answers. RIP!

 

That's far too many checklist items.  Even the Boeing 737 and 747-400 have mercifully short after start, before takeoff, and before landing checklists.  

[DXB]

I don't want to suggest what happened in this particular awful tragedy.  But I would speculate that when I fly with an instructor, even a very good one,  safety margins diminish in some ways.  If I have an engine out, yes- it might be a big advantage.  But there's a good chance I'm up there because I want to extend my comfort zone by trying new things that I wouldn't without a safety net of an expert in the right seat.  Even with PIC roles explicitly clarified, human nature creates an inevitable diffusion of responsibility.  And the best CFI in the world can't get me out of a spin at 400agl, whether I'm in a Cirrus or Mooney.

[Bob]

1 minute ago, jetdriven said:

That's far too many checklist items.  Even the Boeing 737 and 747-400 have mercifully short after start, before takeoff, and before landing checklists.  

Yep!  The Cirrus checklists are beyond stupid!

I am not sure if they were departing, returning or doing pattern work.  But if they were doing pattern work, can you imagine the workload, due to the checklists, that was taking away from flying the plane?  Checklists 80% / Flying the plane 20%?

[M20F]

41 minutes ago, Bob said:

Yep!  The Cirrus checklists are beyond stupid!

I am not sure if they were departing, returning or doing pattern work.  But if they were doing pattern work, can you imagine the workload, due to the checklists, that was taking away from flying the plane?  Checklists 80% / Flying the plane 20%?

The Cirrus checklists are the same or shorter than a Mooney (mainly because you don't have to deal with the gear).  If you look at the other checklists they are verbose but none of the items are done in a critical portion of flight though certainly detailed especially the walk around which probably isn't a bad thing.  I really don't see how you come up with 80% checklists / 20% flying the plane for doing pattern work (or normal flight for that matter).

Normal Takeoff

1. Brakes........................................................................... Release

2. Power Lever .........................................................Full Forward

3. Engine Parameters.......................................................... Check

4. Elevator Control .....................................Rotate at 70-73 KIAS

5. At 80 KIAS................................................................. Flaps Up

Climb

1. Climb Power.........................................................................Set

2. Flaps ......................................................................... Verify Up

3. Mixture ..........................................................Lean as Required

4. Engine Parameters.......................................................... Check

5. Fuel Pump ........................................................................... Off

Cruise

1. Fuel Pump ........................................................................... Off

2. Cruise Power ........................................................................Set

3. Mixture..........................................................Lean as Required

4. Engine Parameters........................................................Monitor

5. Fuel Flow and Balance.................................................Monitor

Descent

1. Altimeter ..............................................................................Set

2. Cabin Heat / Defrost .............................................As Required

3. Landing Light....................................................................... On

4. Fuel System.....................................................................Check

5. Mixture..................................................................As Required

6. Brake Pressure.................................................................Check

Before Landing

1. Seat Belts and Harnesses................................................Secure

2. Fuel Pump ........................................................................Boost

3. Mixture..................................................................As Required

4. Flaps ......................................................................As Required

5. Autopilot ...............................................................As Required

Normal Landing

1. Entry Power.................................................................. 15" MP

2. Entry Speed .............................................................. 120 KIAS

3. Abeam Power ............................................................... 11" MP

4. Abeam Flaps...................................................................... 50%

5. Abeam Speed............................................................ 100 KIAS

6. Base Speed ................................................................. 90 KIAS

7. Aproach Flaps ................................................................. 100%

8. Approach Speed ......................................................... 80 KIAS

Edited March 1, 2016 by M20F
Grammar

[M20F]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

Things I have learned.  Using time, laws of physics, and human cognition...

5) knowing the stall speed for various bank angles, aircraft weights, and flap positions is a full matrix.

 

 

Stall speed changes with weight and configuration, bank angle does not change stall speed.

[Mcoyne34]

I'm not a huge fan of checklists. I believe in the know, do, then verify. When I first started flying, not that long ago, I spent a lot of time looking down to a checklist instead of out my windows or at my instruments. It seemed like more of a hindrance and hazard than anything else. I took the time to memorize what I needed to know. I would do what I had committed to memory then glance at the checklist just to make sure. Adds time to be able to double and triple check everything when you're in a critical phase of flight. 

[ArtVandelay]

53 minutes ago, M20F said:

Stall speed changes with weight and configuration, bank angle does not change stall speed.

Sure it does, from a J POH:

 

[M20F]

Just now, teejayevans said:

Sure it does, from a J POH:

It changes with load factor.  Put 2 G's on your wings in straight flight and your stall speed is going to be the same as a @60 degree bank.  Put a plane in a 60 degree bank with no back pressure and your stall speed isn't going to change from straight and level.

Bank angle doesn't get you in the pattern, loading the wings gets you.  If people would just let the nose fall downwind, base, to final we would eliminate about 90% of all stall incidents.  

[carusoam]

M20F,

My POH clearly states angle of bank effects the stall speed. Similar to Teejay's.

my training showed accelerated stall were caused by rolling into a bank.

This seems pretty critical to understanding how not to fall out of the sky.

Compounding this situation is the pilot trying to slow to target landing speed.

 

I expect that I am missing something in your statement.  Are you saying that a well trimmed plane put in a bank will lower the nose appropriately enough to avoid a stall?  If I let that happen, my altitude control will be gone...

I have not heard of this specifically stated before in a way that is measurable or useable.  I understand that lowering the nose changes the stall speed, but that's not in my POH either (is it?)

It may be there, point mean the direction and I will look it up. 

Best regards,

-a-

[M20F]

4 minutes ago, carusoam said:

M20F,

My POH clearly states angle of bank effects the stall speed. Similar to Teejay's.

Angle of bank with no loss in altitude.  To maintain altitude you apply back pressure which increases the load factor on the wing and stall speed goes up.  The chart really lists how G's effect stall speed because mathematically a level bank angle of X degrees is Y G's.  As you have no way to measure G loads in most planes they are just giving you something to use as rough thumb to approximate your G load.

5 minutes ago, carusoam said:

my training showed accelerated stall were caused by rolling into a bank.

An accelerated stall occurs at a speed higher than normal due to a higher load factor (g's), bank has nothing to do with it.  This video will show accelerated stalls, if you watch starting at 2 minutes you will see an accelerated stall flying straight ahead.  They don't stall because they dropped below Vs, they stall because they loaded up the wings so if they pulled 2G's the plane would have stalled at the same speed as @ 60 degree bank (without the bank).

 

10 minutes ago, carusoam said:

 Are you saying that a well trimmed plane put in a bank will lower the nose appropriately enough to avoid a stall?

Accelerated stalls occur primarily base to final or the impossible turn (disorientation in IMC cruise would be another place where they occur but will ignore that situation), in both cases the goal is to lose altitude and land.  In a normal landing somewhere usually abeam the numbers you reduce power and start descending, turn base, and turn final.  If you keep the nose down (and the wings unloaded) it doesn't matter what bank angle you do your stall speed will not change from Vs/Vso.  More bank angle is probably better than less because what often happens with a shallow bank is in a crosswind you overshoot final, dump in more bank to correct, and then pull back on the stick to tighten the turn.  That increases the wing loading and the accelerated stall happens followed quickly by crashing.  If it is the impossible turn then people bank aggressively and will start to rapidly descend, they pull back on the stick to control altitude, and bang you have an accelerated stall.  If you have enough altitude to turn 180 with the nose falling a turn back on departure works, if not you are either crashing short or putting yourself into an accelerated stall.

If you keep the nose down going around the pattern and you feel the need to pull back on the stick then best to roll out; add power; and go around.  If you do that no need to memorize a bunch of stall speeds or worrying about stalling, rolling into a spin, etc.  Pulling back on the stick prior to flare once you start down from downwind is what gets people in trouble.

Mark or one of the other CFI's will come along and explain it a bit better than I probably did.

[Hank]

I don't "pull back on the stick" in the pattern, but I also don't freely let the nose fall while banking steeply, either. I like a steady, continuous descent, controlled hands-off with trim. So my stall speed in turns will be higher than Vs by some amount, but probably lower than shown in the Stall vs. Bank Angle table. But with no AoA or G meter, I treat it like it's still Vs and hold 90 mph with less than 30° bank.o

Sorry, F, you'll not find much support for your "bank as hard as you want in the pattern, just don't pull back in the yoke" approach here. You also won't find it in PHAK, either, nor from any CFI/CFII that I've ever flown with. And no, I don't want to ride along with you while you demonstrate. It's the very antithesis of a stable approach, which is what we should all have from TPA to touchdown, a whole 1000' of steady descent. Flying a level pattern with steep banks and descents in the turns, then trying to figure out how much descent is actually required on final doesn't sound good to me. I much prefer to roll wings level on final, a half mile or so from the threshold, and see the PAPI lights half red & half white.

Your Mileage DOES Vary on this one. Please fly safely.

[PTK]

4 hours ago, M20F said:

Angle of bank with no loss in altitude.  To maintain altitude you apply back pressure which increases the load factor on the wing and stall speed goes up.  The chart really lists how G's effect stall speed because mathematically a level bank angle of X degrees is Y G's.  As you have no way to measure G loads in most planes they are just giving you something to use as rough thumb to approximate your G load.

An accelerated stall occurs at a speed higher than normal due to a higher load factor (g's), bank has nothing to do with it.  This video will show accelerated stalls, if you watch starting at 2 minutes you will see an accelerated stall flying straight ahead.  They don't stall because they dropped below Vs, they stall because they loaded up the wings so if they pulled 2G's the plane would have stalled at the same speed as @ 60 degree bank (without the bank)

 

Consider this and tell me what you think: 

G force, aka load factor,  increases by a factor of cos−1(θ). Where θ is bank angle.

Vs in a bank = Vs level / square root cos (θ).

Example: in a 60° bank the G's increase fy a factor of 2.