Pelican Parts Forums - Plane crash caught on video

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - Plane crash caught on video (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/917846-plane-crash-caught-video.html)

In the event you get in over your head... admit it to the controller and then file a NASA report.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgarr (Post 9158675)

Just did my BFR last light, as PIC sounds like there was too much listening to controllers than just flying the damn plane. Cant follow instructions that you feel unsafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by flipper35 (Post 9158696)

She could have diverted, she could have asked for vectoring from the tower assuming they have radar coverage.

Excellent points. I think a common issue with new pilots is their lack of confidence with ATC, and/or their lack of knowledge/experience for what they can/should request when prudent.

In this case, ATC was very accommodating (especially considering it's a very busy "Bravo" facility). However, she could have (or should have) either asked for a vector outta there, or simply requested one of the other runways first. She might not have gotten clearance, but it certainly would have been something to ask in that situation IMO. Also, she should have not complied with ATC's requests if/when it was outside of her comfort-zone. When ATC requested to "keep it tight", and get it down quick, a simple "unable" would have sufficed to shut the door and let ATC know that wasn't going to work. Again, just my $.02...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Coffey (Post 9158812)

Watch the video closely. You can see it spill out over the car's windshield and vaporize after the tanks rupture on impact.

Thanks, I couldn't see it on my monitor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seahawk (Post 9158715)

She had to have the right equipment, transponder Mode C, etc., to even be in the Hobby airspace so they could have sent her away and followed her progress.

Trust me, the controllers did all the right things.

One of the the things I used to do as an instrument check pilot, standardization pilot, NVG instructor pilot, maintenance test pilot, etc. when things would get a bit salty is get straight and level, get a few minutes to orient then get back in the game.

She needed to know what to ask, to focus on on anything other than gethomeitis to Hobby.

I didn't want to assume anything in regards to Hobby.

I do know somewhat what she was going through. Back in 1987 I was flying, as a STUDENT pilot with all of 30 hours, a 152 to KCID and in the pattern I was told to make a short final behind the 737 to make room for the DC10. I did, and I came in hotter than normal with less flaps and landed further down the runway to avoid vortices. Even though I have more "experience" today I have not flown weekly like in flight school and I know I wouldn't attempt that same flight today.

Gary - that's right, but the FAA's enhanced enforcement efforts have effectively turned it into a race to see who can file their papers first. NASA filing does not 'save you' after an enforcement action has been started.

Eric - you are right about "unable" - however the ATC can then vector you around until it is convenient to work you into the flow. Or until you run low on fuel and declare an emergency. Or until you leave - which is what they actually want you to do.

Ironically, the plane was registered to "SAFE AVIATION LLC"

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashflyer (Post 9158801)

Unless they release the data, we will never know how much Class B time she had. We are looking at this with an incomplete knowledge of her experience.

True. However we do know that she had her PPL for less than 2 years, and she didn't fly for a living. We can also gather a little clarity by listening to the ATC comms and looking at the ground track. I'd say the decision to even consider landing at a Bravo when other options beckoned is a bit telling as well. She may have just picked the closest facility to the cancer center, without considering the pros/cons, or having a plan B/C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashflyer (Post 9158801)

She was taking family members to the cancer center to visit with other family members. Her mind may have not been in the game. And for sure, when things started going south, she had to contend with those passengers who were looking to her for a safe arrival. Situations like this go to **** in a hurry, no matter who you are.

I guess the flip side of that coin would be that because you have other souls on board (family members no-less), you should be extra prepared, aware, and diligent to get them on the ground safely.
I can't imagine how the family member at the cancer center must be feeling now...

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashflyer (Post 9158851)

Eric - you are right about "unable" - however the ATC can then vector you around until it is convenient to work you into the flow.

Sending her out in the weeds for a bit may have been a good thing, and may have given her a chance to "unfrazzle" and get her head in the game. It seems as though she had plenty of fuel to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashflyer (Post 9158851)

Or until you leave - which is what they actually want you to do.

That's probably what she should have done, at the first sign of being squeezed by ATC (and realizing that she was at a busy Bravo with heavy jets breathing down her neck).
If you can hack it, great. If not, (and you are holding up the line), you should probably just get out of the way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashflyer (Post 9158851)

Ironically, the plane was registered to "SAFE AVIATION LLC"

Yeah, saw that. LLC address is the same as her PPL, so I'd say it's safe to assume it was hers (just owned under an LLC they created).

I had ATC clear me for final right after a "heavy" I was in my paper airplane, I said "nope" asked for a 360 which was not a problem then final:

Agreed on all counts, Eric.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashflyer (Post 9158778)

Probably one of the likely options, somewhere between the letter in your file and the permanent revocation, is what they call a 709 ride. This is an FAA order for you to take a "check ride" with an FAA inspector. Based on the outcome, you could go on your way or you could be suspended while you take remedial training.

One of my friends from Long Island had two 709's in a matter of a month in the mid 1990's. First time the landing gear light did not show down when the landing gear was deployed. Second time, same aircraft, the landing gear would not deploy forcing a belly landing.

His second 709 resulted in the FAA pilot crashing the plane and nearly killing both of them and some kids on the ground.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgarr (Post 9158675)

Its too bad! Just did my BFR last light, as PIC sounds like there was too much listening to controllers than just flying the damn plane. Cant follow instructions that you feel unsafe

How does it go - aviate, navigate, and communicate, in that order. Or something like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Coffey (Post 9158833)

She might not have gotten clearance, but it certainly would have been something to ask in that situation IMO. Also, she should have not complied with ATC's requests if/when it was outside of her comfort-zone. When ATC requested to "keep it tight", and get it down quick, a simple "unable" would have sufficed to shut the door and let ATC know that wasn't going to work. Again, just my $.02...

For some new pilots or low time private pilots, they find it difficult to assert themselves or think what ATC says must be followed without question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-beard (Post 9157888)

That is precisely what I'm saying. Do you think an inexperienced pilot should be using a major commercial airport. She made 3 attempts to land. She could not tell which runway was which. She caused commercial airliners to go around.

Ellington field is 5 miles away. Longer runways and no commercial traffic. Which would make more sense?

So you are not a pilot...okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Alton (Post 9158158)

Its not there for pilot errors, its there predominantly for mechanical failure... or loss of thrust by other means....

It is there for whatever reason it is needed...including pilot error. It is there to save lives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Coffey (Post 9157559)

In something like the SR20, things happen much faster, basically leaving zero margin for error with a low-time pilot. It's a scenario that is the cause of many tragic incidents, and also why that particular A/C and it's bigger brother (SR22) are known as the new "doctor killers".

This makes me wince and that was the reason for my retort. If you haven't flown one, don't jump to this conclusion. This is just not true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Coffey (Post 9157849)

Agree to disagree I guess, but it think it's a fairly accurate assessment WRT to low-time pilots who are attracted to (and have the means to purchase/fly) higher-performance planes right after getting their licenses.

Regarding this particular incident: You are correct, too little is known at this time to make any final determinations. However, what we DO know is that she was fairly new pilot, with relatively low time (presumably less as PIC of that A/C). We also know that she was flying an SR20. That is a low-wing, higher-performance plane with much higher Vs, and Vmc than a the average GA Cessna or similar (not to mention longer landing distance). We also know that she made several attempts to land, without any distress call, and her ground track was all over the place. We know that during those aborted landings, she couldn't maintain a proper pattern/approach/glide-slope, and had to be "waived-off" by ATC. We also know that she topped off the tanks before departure, so fuel starvation should not have been a factor. Weather was clear, but winds may have contributed. On that last abort, she was making a left-hand cross, and winds were 090@13G18 (right quartering tailwind @ 13kts, gusting to 18kts.). If she was already "low and slow", that certainly wouldn't have helped matters.

I've listed to the ATC audio, and you could tell she was overwhelmed. That said, ATC made an effort to slow things down, and hold her hand a bit (kudos). Unfortunately and tragically, it wasn't enough.

As mentioned above, there were plenty of other smaller/less congested airports nearby.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to pick such a busy facility unless you are very familiar, and can get it down quick and easy, and have no problem being in front of, behind, or sandwiched in between heavy jets.

If you have another perspective, please share.

I have no doubt they are great A/C, and I am not calling the "safety of Cirrus products" into question at all. In fact, I am sure there are plenty of pilots alive today solely due to their BRS deployments. I just question the judgement of many of their newbie owners/pilots, especially if/when they fly with other souls on board. The simple fact is that there are plenty out there that have no business behind the (side) stick of an SR20/22, and those pilots are ultimately the ones that affect a plane's reputation (bad new travels fast, etc.). The V-tail Bonanza shared the same stigma previously, and the Cirrus seems to be the next incarnation. I am not alone in the above sentiment, and the "facts" are out there if you choose to seek them out.

Just my $.02, YMMV...

Sure, I am a Cirrus owner and pilot SR22 for the last 10 years. I would invite you to the owners forum www.cirruspilots.org where we disect each incident/accident in an effort to learn from it. It is a popular plane for sure and a great flying one. In a majority of cases it is the pilot that is at fault. I think with a stall/spin in the pattern here, we will probably find the same conclusion. It wasn't the plane's fault. The were probably doomed when they decided to fly - any airplane could have ended the same. The Cirrus is no more difficult to fly/land that any other I have flown in some 40 years.

My opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpyderMike (Post 9159311)

This makes me wince and that was the reason for my retort. If you haven't flown one, don't jump to this conclusion. This is just not true.

You quoted me a bit out of context there, but the statement is still accurate.

Tell you what, go on over to Google and type in "doctor killer c" and let me know what the auto-complete gives you for that last word as the top result.

Wait, on second thought, DON'T do that if you are prone to wincing. :p

Again, I am not personally condemning that A/C at all, and am actually a fan (just like the Glassair and Lancair that came before and likely inspired it). I was simply pointing out that there seems to be a lot of low-time pilots with more money than experience/skill that are attracted to the "fast glass" type aircraft, which is often a decision that doesn't end well. Unfortunately, that also leads to A/C like the Cirrus acquiring a negative stigma that is hard to shake, even if it is largely unwarranted.

SmileWavy

Sad, sad story... Nothing personal to contribute but I found this link very interesting:
Cirrus SR20 (and a bit about the SR22)