Cirrus Parachute saves 3 lives

[ComplexHiAv8r]

Flying Magazine Article
http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/accidents/cirrus-sr22-crashes-connecticut
Pic tells it all. Parachute did EXACTLY what is should do. NOTE no apparent damage to passenger compartment.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

"With this, or upon it."

 

[Jpax]

NTSB Prelim is out.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130123X73100&key=1




NTSB Identification: ERA13LA117
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, January 22, 2013 in Danbury, CT
Aircraft: CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR20, registration: N140PG
Injuries: 3 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On January 22, 2013, about 1925 eastern standard time, a Cirrus Design Corp. SR20, N140PG, operated by Epic Blue was substantially damaged after it deployed its Cirrus Airplane Parachute System (CAPS), while on approach to the Danbury Municipal Airport (DXR), Danbury, Connecticut. The flight instructor, a private pilot, and a passenger were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan had been filed for the flight that last departed Groton-New London Airport (GON), Groton, Connecticut. The familiarization flight was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.

According to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector, the flight instructor and two occupants originally departed from DXR, landed at GON, and were returning to DXR at the time of the accident. The airplane was on approach to runway 26 at DXR, when it experienced a total loss of engine power and the pilot reported that the airplane was "out of fuel" to air traffic control. The pilot elected to deploy the CAPS and the airplane subsequently descended via parachute into trees, about 3 miles northeast of the airport. The airplane's empennage separated and the fuselage sustained substantial damage.

Initial examination of the airplane by an FAA inspector did not reveal any visible fuel in the airplane's fuel tanks, nor were there any indications of a fuel spill at the accident site. After the airplane was recovered, approximately 26 ounces of fuel was drained from the airplane's fuel system.

The airplane was equipped with a remote data module (RDM) mounted in the empennage, which was intended to record engine and flight parameters. In addition, a memory card was found in the Avidyne multi-function-display unit located in the cockpit. Both the RDM and memory card were removed and forwarded to the NTSB Vehicle Recorders Laboratory, Washington, DC, for data download.

 

[Okie_Pilot]

Ooooooooooopsie.

 

[jynxyjoe]

It's been a while since I was single engine or CFI'ing so pardon the stupidity.

If you're in a cirrus or a cessna (high or low wing), without gas (obviously light), and 3miles out on glidepath can you make it in with no power. Flaps up and shoot for best glide? Leave flaps in shoot for best glide? I'm thinking no but some one else must have done this recently in a training environment.

 

[jrh]

If you're in a cirrus or a cessna (high or low wing), without gas (obviously light), and 3miles out on glidepath can you make it in with no power. Flaps up and shoot for best glide? Leave flaps in shoot for best glide? I'm thinking no but some one else must have done this recently in a training environment.

No way you'd make it in most trainer planes under any configuration. Maybe in a Diamond DA20 or DA40? Those planes seem to glide especially well. Cirrus and Cessna products wouldn't make it though.

Most of my experience with Cirrus has been in the SR22 and it glides similar to a Piper Arrow--not well. If you have an engine failure in the traffic pattern, abeam the numbers on downwind, one must turn almost immediately to make the runway. I believe the SR20 is better, but not by much.

Even a Cessna 172 will not be able to glide along an ILS glideslope without a tail wind.

If you're at 1000 AGL in a piston single, unless you're literally in the traffic pattern when the engine quits, you should plan for an off-airport landing.

As for the original story: It sounds like some sort of carelessness lead to the engine failure, but I'm glad they had the parachute and didn't pay for their mistake with their lives. That's what the chute is there for.

 

[jynxyjoe]

I know at 3 miles a Bonanza will put in at about 1.4 short with full flaps and gear down.

PS. Also a CT accident.

 

[Mark815]

It is like using the ejection seat on a fighter jet. Once you do that, the plane is more than likely totaled .

Great way to put it! I've never thought of it that way.

When I was teaching, we could glide to the field if we were about 3 miles out in the 152/172. Of course, that's from a couple thousand feet, and not traffic pattern altitude. I know one of the CFIs I worked with lost the engine in a light sport on about a 1mi final, and he made it in no problem, but again a CTLS glides a heck of a lot better than a Cirrus would.

 

[89-LX]

A question for seasoned CFI's out there:

Its been awhile since I flew a Cirrus, but I do remember having to put in the fuel total in the system after engine start. It says familiarization flight, but what if its just a normal instruction flight with a student who is well trained on the aircraft. At what point do you trust the student and the fuel levels that they measure?

 

[pilot4500]

Great way to put it! I've never thought of it that way.

When I was teaching, we could glide to the field if we were about 3 miles out in the 152/172. Of course, that's from a couple thousand feet, and not traffic pattern altitude. I know one of the CFIs I worked with lost the engine in a light sport on about a 1mi final, and he made it in no problem, but again a CTLS glides a heck of a lot better than a Cirrus would.

Thank you! I used to to teach that to my students when I was instructing in a Cirrus. As a Cirrus charter pilot, I always keep that thought in the back of my mind. Using the parachute is always a last resort for me, but I know it could save my life and my passengers lives it the bad stuff really hits the fan.

It sounds like this crash could have been prevented if the pilot had put a few gallons of fuel in his plane. At least he was smart enough to pull the chute when he really didn't have any other option.

 

[Mark815]

At what point do you trust the student and the fuel levels that they measure?

Never trust the student.


I don't mean that in a bad way. After the first few lessons, my students were responsible for determining fuel load (no, don't just go out and top off because it's easier, figure out how much fuel we actually need for our flight), and then I'd check.

Problem is that your certificate is always on the line when you're giving dual. Even with post solo students, and heck even BFRs with seasoned pilots in their own planes, I used to always double check things like fuel levels, fuel caps and oil caps. It takes 20 seconds extra, and as the CFI it's your responsibility to ensure the aircraft is ready for flight. If something happens, you'll be the one answering questions, and being scrutinized by the feds.

I don't want to armchair QB this case in CT, but if the CFI didn't actually check the levels, and the plane was low on fuel than it rests on his shoulders unfortunately.

 

[89-LX]

Never trust the student.


I don't mean that in a bad way. After the first few lessons, my students were responsible for determining fuel load (no, don't just go out and top off because it's easier, figure out how much fuel we actually need for our flight), and then I'd check.

Problem is that your certificate is always on the line when you're giving dual. Even with post solo students, and heck even BFRs with seasoned pilots in their own planes, I used to always double check things like fuel levels, fuel caps and oil caps. It takes 20 seconds extra, and as the CFI it's your responsibility to ensure the aircraft is ready for flight. If something happens, you'll be the one answering questions, and being scrutinized by the feds.

I don't want to armchair QB this case in CT, but if the CFI didn't actually check the levels, and the plane was low on fuel than it rests on his shoulders unfortunately.

Thanks. I only have a few hours instructing, and its mostly BFR/IPC's with friends and a few initial stuff for a friend of mine, but I know when I was being taught, after 5 or so flights, the CFI trusted me with the fuel loads.

 

[GolfChuck]

Thanks. I only have a few hours instructing, and its mostly BFR/IPC's with friends and a few initial stuff for a friend of mine, but I know when I was being taught, after 5 or so flights, the CFI trusted me with the fuel loads.

My CFI also trusted me with the fuel loads.

That being said, someone mentioned earlier that they took off with 24 gal of fuel and stated that that should be plenty. I have never flown a Cirrus, but a quick google search gave me the numbers of 13.9gph at 55% power (no idea what altitude that is for). The same search had the 55% power cruising speed of 171kias. Assuming no wind, round trip to GON would take approximately 45 minutes enroute. Appropriate fuel for that trip would be about 21 gallons (with 45 minute reserve). That does not leave a whole lot left over for taxiing, a run-up, and (two) climb out.

Personally, I am of the mindset (at least in my early hours of being a pilot) that I am going to carry as much fuel as possible to carry myself and the contents of the aircraft, so I do two calculations, one to find the amount of fuel needed (which I am still usually conservative about) and one to find that total amount of fuel I can carry and remain within the weight and balance limits. I fly strictly for recreation, but I find the few dollars I may spend on carrying extra fuel around is worth the piece of mind that I have enough fuel for just about any contingency. Someone around here (I forget who) has a signature that reads, "The only time you have too much fuel is when you are on fire." I am inclined to agree with that statement.

 

[ComplexHiAv8r]

You numbers are the for 310hp SR22. It was a 200hp SR20. Run lean can get in the 8.5gph, full rich about 14gph, best power should be about 12gph and 120-125kts. 24 gallons should of been more then enough.

My CFI also trusted me with the fuel loads.

That being said, someone mentioned earlier that they took off with 24 gal of fuel and stated that that should be plenty. I have never flown a Cirrus, but a quick google search gave me the numbers of 13.9gph at 55% power (no idea what altitude that is for). The same search had the 55% power cruising speed of 171kias. Assuming no wind, round trip to GON would take approximately 45 minutes enroute. Appropriate fuel for that trip would be about 21 gallons (with 45 minute reserve). That does not leave a whole lot left over for taxiing, a run-up, and (two) climb out.

 

[Mark815]

Thanks. I only have a few hours instructing, and its mostly BFR/IPC's with friends and a few initial stuff for a friend of mine, but I know when I was being taught, after 5 or so flights, the CFI trusted me with the fuel loads.

I don't have nearly as many hours as some instructors on here, however I can tell you that you should never have so much trust that you don't check basics like fuel and oil. Now I'm not telling you to be distrustful of them. If that's the case you'd never solo them, but when you're in the airplane your job is to make sure everything is done safely.

You're simply covering yourself and your certificate should something happen. Everyone is capable of mistakes, your job is to prevent, or at least reduce the risk of those happening while on your ticket.

 

[jrh]

Problem is that your certificate is always on the line when you're giving dual. Even with post solo students, and heck even BFRs with seasoned pilots in their own planes, I used to always double check things like fuel levels, fuel caps and oil caps. It takes 20 seconds extra, and as the CFI it's your responsibility to ensure the aircraft is ready for flight. If something happens, you'll be the one answering questions, and being scrutinized by the feds.

I don't really agree with this or believe it's reality. Do you have any case law to support this point of view?

There are plenty of reasons why a CFI might fly with a fully rated, qualified pilot and not be held responsible after an accident. The CFI's job is to teach, not be held accountable for every conceivable aspect of a flight.

Not that I disagree with you for double checking something. Caution is always good. I'm just not sure about your premise.

 

[Mark815]

If you're there providing instruction, my understanding is that you are still technically in charge of the flight in the eyes of the FAA, regardless if the other pilot has his own ratings. I'll do some research on it, but that's what I've been told from past instructors and even a DPE, however I can't recall seeing it in writing. I'll do some homework on it.

I don't disagree that a CFI may fly with a fully rated pilot, that happens everyday and isn't my argument. If the CFI wasn't there for instructional purposes than I don't see how the FAA could hold them responsible if anything happened. My point is aimed at CFI's who are in fact there giving dual, and not just along for some ride. In my eyes if a rated and qualified pilot asks a CFI to ride along to help or observe something, that person is now on duty as an instructor, and not simply a passenger therefore accepting the duties and responsibilities that come along with the title.

edit: Doing some quick reading, I'm not able to find the full text of the case, but I've found bits and pieces of Admin. v. Hamre. The statements below were pulled from an article I found online and apparently quote the case, stating,

"The NTSB in one of its earlier cases clearly states that regardless of who is manipulating the controls of an aircraft during an instructional flight, the CFI is always deemed to be the pilot in command"

There are gray areas to this, the article even admits, but I would like to find the actual case and read it.

 

[jrh]

Here's something to consider: The FAA doesn't require CFIs to hold a medical certificate when they're flying with a fully qualified pilot. The CFI certificate is a license to teach, not to fly.

Now, I know the line gets blurred when there is a 5000 hour CFI teaching a 50 hour private pilot. After an accident, the FAA very well might look at the bigger picture of what was going on and, if the accident was caused by some kind of gross negligence, ask the CFI why they let it happen. Common sense has to come in to play at some point.

But let's take some of the flying I've done. Way back in the day, I had a client who was a 150 hour private private pilot with a Cirrus SR22. He'd bought the plane new and had been checked out by Cirrus factory instructors over the course of several days. I'd never touched an SR22 before when he asked me to train him for his instrument rating.

I was a fairly experienced CFII, and had flown other high performance singles before, but never the SR22. Let's say something had happened during my first few flights with this client. Would the FAA have expected me to know every system, operating limitation, and characteristic of the SR22? The client was the one in charge of operating the aircraft. I was there to teach him how to do it on instruments.

Another example from my more recent past: I'm the only active instructor who holds an MEI rating at my home airport. A very experienced, very professional, current, ATP-rated pilot who owns and flies a Cessna 340 under Part 91 asked me to give him an instrument proficiency check. We talked about the simulated zero thrust power settings for doing single engine approaches, made it clear he was the PIC at all times, and off we went. It was my first and only hour in a Cessna 340. If he'd screwed something up on the preflight, would I have been held responsible?

I don't know. Maybe so. I was willing to take my chances.

And to reiterate, I'm all for safe operating practices. I double check and verify pilots from time to time, too. I just think it's important to be clear about the difference between "This is good advice to have a long, happy, and safe career as an instructor," versus "It is your legal obligation to oversee everything regarding the flight because you will be held accountable by the FAA."

I bet MidlifeFlyer could provide some good insight on this topic.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

edit: Doing some quick reading, I'm not able to find the full text of the case, but I've found bits and pieces of Admin. v. Hamre. The statements below were pulled from an article I found online and apparently quote the case, stating,

"The NTSB in one of its earlier cases clearly states that regardless of who is manipulating the controls of an aircraft during an instructional flight, the CFI is always deemed to be the pilot in command"

There are gray areas to this, the article even admits, but I would like to find the actual case and read it.

Hamre is a 1977 case and beyond the date where most free or low-cost databases carry these cases. But there is a later NTSB case that cites Hamre and even discusses what are some limits to the rule. The case that is available is Strobel, http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4384.PDF.

Read it, but to briefly summarize, there was a fact question in Strobel whether it was a training flight to begin with. The NTSB resolved that issue against the instructor. It then went on to quote Hamre:

Our precedent makes clear that, "[r]egardless of who is manipulating the controls of the aircraft during an instructional flight, or what degree of proficiency the student has attained, the flight instructor is always deemed to be the pilot-in-command." Administrator v. Hamre, 3 NTSB 28, 31 (1977). This principle was reaffirmed in Administrator v. Walkup, 6 NTSB 36 (1988). (footnote 10 in Stroebel.​

The result though was interesting, especially to the more paranoid CFIs - After being held to the standard of the PIC, the NTSB found in favor of the CFI, Stroebel, dismissing the enforcement action against him because the student did something unexpected that Strobel could not reasonable anticipate:

Despite respondent's status as flight instructor and pilot in command, we will not impose strict liability on him for all of his student's mistakes. Although flight instructors are expected to "do all things possible for the safety of the flight," they are not held strictly liable for its safe outcome.​

​

For those who would legitimately raise the question, "but what if the CFI didn't have a medical," I suggest the the cases are not about morphing a CFI into a "Part 1 PIC." I think they are better read as saying the a CFI during an instructional flight has instructional responsibilities; responsibilities equivalent to those of a pilot in command.