Off airport landing at MLB 2/29/2012

MikeD said:
Not necessarily. It's moreso found with people who have experience in the business, they try to connect the dots with what they think they know. Not found as much with a layperson adult.
Click to expand...
Definitely...but in theory children have less life experience and would make better witnesses because they simply just state what happened. At least that's what the professor said in my Accident Investigation class in college.
 
at1024 said:
Definitely...but in theory children have less life experience and would make better witnesses because they simply just state what happened. At least that's what the professor said in my Accident Investigation class in college.
Click to expand...

While true in a general sense, that has been disproven a couple of times in a couple of accidents, even a major one. But normally, it is the case.
 
Maurus said:
Seems it was speculation based on previous experiences with the controllers at said airfield.


Talk about terrible news reporting. Tons of speculation that has absolutely no facts behind it. They could have gotten a lot of the facts they needed based on the ATC transmissions on live-ATC.
Click to expand...

So true, but facts are boring and sensationalism sells, it's a shame. God bless all involved. Do you know if a parachute deploy would have changed the outcome at a low altitude? I do not have time in the 22
 
Wheelsup23 said:
So true, but facts are boring and sensationalism sells, it's a shame. God bless all involved. Do you know if a parachute deploy would have changed the outcome at a low altitude? I do not have time in the 22
Click to expand...
Probably not, loss of alt from level flight is 400' from a one turn spin 920', not to mention the time it takes not only to make the decision, but reach up and pull the handle. Also im not sure how affective the deployment would be if the plane was in a steep bank since the parachute would launch out at an angle not straight up...
 
When you factor in the response time for the pilot, the time it takes for the chute to deploy and then the time for it to decelerate you to a safe speed you will find it is not very useful at low altitudes. The design of the chute requires it to be pulled at less than 133 knots and 920ft in a descent.

Here is a history of CAPS deployments
 
MikeD said:
Not necessarily. It's moreso found with people who have experience in the business, they try to connect the dots with what they think they know. Not found as much with a layperson adult.
Click to expand...

I can give a true life, non-accident related example of how too much knowledge gets in the way. Last year we had one of our Lears that had an issue with the brakes not stopping main wheel rotation on gear retraction. The main was spinning in the wheel well, and rubbed through a snubber block that was there specifically for that purpose. It actually caused some damage by starting to wear metal on metal. An email was sent to the pilot group outlining what happened.

Fast forward to a couple of weeks ago. A pilot writes up one of our Lears for "right main spinning in the wheel well upon gear retraction", or words to that affect. MX spent a bunch of hours thoroughly checking out the system and coming up blank. Finally on a hunch they went down another road and found a nose wheel out of balance. Perfect example of too much knowledge combined with preconception.

MX reaction? Please don't diagnose, just describe everything you feel and see thoroughly.
 
Maurus said:
When you factor in the response time for the pilot, the time it takes for the chute to deploy and then the time for it to decelerate you to a safe speed you will find it is not very useful at low altitudes. The design of the chute requires it to be pulled at less than 133 knots and 920ft in a descent.

Here is a history of CAPS deployments
Click to expand...

Any how much time do you have in a Cirrus that didn't end with broken equipment? 8)

Sad to hear, RIP to those involved. Hope the other Pilot/Controller gets the help they need as well.
 
at1024 said:
Yeah definitely that. I just went back and listened to the liveATC recording and it doesn't sound like the controller overreacted at all.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link for that? And if so, what time during the recording did it happen to make it easier to find?
 
It sounded like the pilot made a too tight a left hand turn and went into an accelerated stall. Regarding the transmission, does anyone understand what went wrong? It seems like from what I can make out that the controller wanted 0SR to extend his downwind and follow the traffic on final for 9R, but I'm not too sure as I didn't exactly hear that.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Wait, how did the controller make it "more intense"?
Click to expand...


Agreed, I listened to the whole thing and the professionalism of the controller was outstanding. Furthermore--how those guys do it is beyond me. You could hear the pain in the man's voice at the end.
 
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/fatal_cirrus_crash_audio_melbourne_206259-1.html
:52---> Tower: "611DA, turn final for 9R West of the interstate, cleared touch and go then fly the runway heading."
1:00--> 611DA: "9R cleared touch and go then runway heading 611DA."
1:30--> Tower: "1DA just fly the runway heading after your touch and go."
1:35--> 611DA: "Runway heading after touch and go 9R, 611DA."
2:12--> Tower: "4SR long landing approved 9R (brief pause) your cleared to land."

My condolences.
 
Blackhawk said:
...but the vast majority of stall spin accidents involve CFIs, the one group required to undergo spin training. I won't be surprised if we hear a CFI was on this airplane. Indicates to me there is a problem with the current stall/spin CFI training.
Click to expand...
My CFI spin endorsement consisted of three two turn spins in a 172...Good thing I had some experience with spins in a 150 aerobat prior to CFI training.
 
beasly said:
Agreed, I listened to the whole thing and the professionalism of the controller was outstanding. Furthermore--how those guys do it is beyond me. You could hear the pain in the man's voice at the end.
Click to expand...
You could hear the strain in his voice, but he kept his cool and got the job done. That is why ATC is good at what they do.
 
Obviously a pilot should never let ATC dictate how you fly your airplane if it would compromise safety. I do think they (tower) should avoid phrases like "keep it in real tight".

The controller seemed over tasked.
 
I got a little bit of time in a SR22 from a demo flight at a sales show. The version I flew had a pronounced wing washout. He had me stall the airplane or at least wing root and then wiggle the wings and there was complete and responsive aileron authority. The airplane seemed very recalcitrant to get her to stall. The aileron responsive would be your friend normally, but it could turn your enemy if you got on the rudders.

I remember doing skidded turn stalls in Navy during NFO primary in T34s where you would put in a skid at the rudder shakers and then cross control the overbank by adding opposite aileron, and when it departed man did it roll over. I think in the civilian world they call it a cross control approach stall?

Anyway I don't know what happened, but I could see that a stall resistant airplane like the sr22 could be a bear if you jumped on the rudders to help you make a tight turn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top