Folks like to call out the Cessna 172 due to it's perceived safety. The Fuel selector in that model is positioned on the floor at the base of the center console; not in the normal cockpit scan. It has left, right and both positions. There have been accidents where the selector was placed in a position other that "both" and the pilot ran out of fuel even though gauges are right in front of their eyes. Know your plane!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1466108737.jpg


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1466108757.jpg

I have owned and flown both of these aircraft. They are both good at what they do...they are made for different missions really. But operating any aircraft requires a level of proficiency in aircraft systems knowledge and use. That is the idea behind transition training and why that is a prudent by thing to do.

Just my opinion.

Fuel selector position is also part of the pre-flight.

Along the lines of some earlier conversation, why did this guy pull the chute when he had alternatives? Think it was safer to pull the chute and have no control over where you land, or glide it down to the road and land but have to worry about traffic, etc?


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zSN5Q0EmxyY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The impact with the ground under the chute is much much less than the energy dissipated trying to "land". It can be really hard to see obstacles in a forced landing situation until it is too late and you are all out of options (powerlines, people, cars, trees, etc). By an overwhelming margin, more people who pull the chute are alive than those that didn't pull the chute.

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xPo5yuLbvco" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The rate of descent under parachute is about 20 mph. The stall speed of the plane is around 65 to 75 mph depending on plane configuration. The relationship between energy and velocity is squared. The energy dissipated difference is significant.

http://cirrusaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPS_Guide.pdf

All the technical aspects aside, and of course I don't know the unfortunate pilot, but in my experience with flying, racing and street bikes some people just don't seem to have the personality/mental perspective that I think someone who participates in potentially dangerous activities should have. Almost a lack of imagination for what could happen...

She sounded as if she was in over her head but ATC was giving her some confusing instructions as well. At her experience level she could have asked to exit the area and come back in and get lined up with the right runway (fuel permitting). Few people do that but I think she was pretty rattled and could have benefited from a break to collect herself.

interesting read..

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/july/24/how-cirrus-reduced-accidents?utm_source=ePilot&utm_medium=Content&utm _content=osh&utm_campaign=160726special

Very sad story. Shame they couldn't get the chute out on it in time.

It sure was.

Have a plan before you need a plan.

Another Cirrus down:
Small plane comes down short of the runway at Henderson Executive Airport | KSNV