Parachute (CAPS) Indecision | Cirrus SR22T (N17DT) Flight Ends in a Fatal Accident
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 янв 2024
- We outline the flight of a Cirrus SR22T on November 22, 2023 equipped with the CAPS parachute. The 2 pilots did not activate the parachute system (despite being at a sufficient altitude for activation) when in trouble. The pilots died upon impact with the ground in a corn field. An eye witness to the accident described the aircraft to be in a stall only 100-200' above the ground with the wings vertical at one point before the impact with the ground and subsequent fire. The CAPS system and the flight path of N17DT is described.
(Condolences to all the families associated with this accident)
Excellent insight provided by a Cirrus pilot (YT username muledogmuledog8944) There are two reasons the SR series didn’t get certification without the parachute. Lots of “old time” instructors, including a good friend of mine, died trying to land in a cornfield, while 3 friends I know have walked away pulling it. 1: It can’t recover from a spin. Arguably, with a CFI on board especially, that shouldn’t happen. 2: in 7 out of 10 cases, on flat grass field landings, let alone a corn field as you suggest, because of the low 3” clearance of the wheel pants, and the fwd cg of the engine, the plane cartwheels into a fireball when any other aircraft besides a cirrus could land uneventfully, or at least, without substantial damage causing fatal injuries. The dead CFI who wasn’t a CSIP shared your mindset, because he hadn’t participated in the engineer led safety courses at Cirrus I have, to fully understand the importance of using the chute. Also, I own 2 SR22 planes, as well as a Lance, DA62, and King Air 200, and while the latter 3 show buffeting and signs of impending stall, because of the split wing, the cirrus doesn’t. Not the slightest until the wing snaps over. A non-Cirrus instructor wouldn’t recognize it until it snapped over, and also wouldn’t grab the chute handle out of immediate instinct when it happens, obviously. I have no doubt of your competency, or the dead CFI’s in a 172 or a Malibu, but statistically, the in training flights, 32:1 non-cirrus instructors will perish in the event of engine failure over the CSIP who grabs the handle. For a reason. It takes a lot to unlearn the control we all agree to assume when we lose and engine with respect to maintaining stability all the way to the ground. With the airspeed tape on the very left of the perspective screen, in a panicky cockpit, it would have been a tough task for the right seat CFI vs a CSIP who would have pulled immediately to give canopy time to deploy. Buying a cirrus doesn’t buy additional safety, but additional risk if you don’t use the certification method required by the FAA to avoid cartwheel/fire and spin accidents.
Please feel free to leave your thoughts. Subscriptions encourage similar content!
TIMESTAMPS
Introduction to CAPS 0:06
Accident PreFlight Briefing 0:35
FlightAware Flight Path 1:55
Departure 2:29
Circuit 1 3:55
Circuit 2 6:20
Critical Indecision 9:20
Post Accident Narration 11:02
CAPS Facts 11:30
Why did the pilots not pull the parachute 11:48
Final Words 13:00
Additional Resources:
AVIATION NEWS TALK: 303 Cirrus SR22T Crash at Shelbyville, IN and Why the CAPS Parachute Matters aviationnewstalk.com/podcast/...
FlightAware: www.flightaware.com/live/flig...
Aviation Safety Network: aviation-safety.net/wikibase/...
National Transportation Safety Board Preliminary Report data.ntsb.gov/carol-main-publ...
Cirrus Aircraft: cirrusaircraft.com
CAPS brochure: flyasg.co.uk/wp-content/uploa...
Music
Ethereal by Punch Deck
Urano by Alex Productions
A Kind of Hope by Scott Buckley
#planecrash #emergency #documentary
I was CAPS save 119, when the propeller detached from my SR22 over Belgium only three days before these pilots died.
If ever there was a stark contrast that brings into focus the need to understand the vital benefit that CAPS / BRS brings to flying single engine aircraft, this is it.
So sr22 have bad construction??
Thanks for your comment and glad to hear your survival message. I have pinned your message!
@@gordjy No, the Cirrus aircraft are well made. Much has to do with the mindset. If you have not been trained in a Cirrus, you do not have the same understanding about the parachute technology and benefits. It is about training when to use the parachute.
@@gordjy No, there are well over 7000 Cirrus aircraft flying and they are as well built, and better designed, than pretty much any other SEP.
I can offer no better endorsement than to say that I have bought another one and am very happy flying it!
Why did the prop come off?
Excuse me I'm an old timer but I would question flight training that emphasized pulling a parachute rather than learning how to fly the plane properly as this video suggests. This was a stall spin accident over corn fields that should not have resulted in a fatality or even damage to the aircraft. Given the unlimited corn fields northwest of Shelbyville I would have landed the aircraft. Back in the stone age when I was an instructor we drilled power off landings over and over again. I had every confidence that any of my students would walk away from engine failure over anything other than a congested city. The key here was maintaining airspeed, not failing to pull a parachute. A controlled landing, even into fences or trees rarely results in a fatality or even a serious injury. A stall spin however is usually fatal.
Thanks for watching and commenting. Your points are well taken. Precisely, they were unable to maintain airspeed for whatever reason and they should have pulled the parachute. We do not know if the instructor had training as a certified Cirrus Standardized Instructor Pilot.
@@TheFlightLevel " Precisely, they were unable to maintain airspeed for whatever reason and they should have pulled the parachute. " -- No. They should have just landed the plane straight ahead. You maintain air speed wit hyour yoke, or in case of a cirrus with your side stik, even if the engine is dead.
" We do not know if the instructor had training as a certified Cirrus Standardized Instructor Pilot." If the instructur cannot a power off (assumed) at pattern altitude, then the problem started when they took off, not when they could have pulled the chute. But yes, wit ha student who cannot yet land an airplane and an FI who cannot either, it would be a smart idea to pull the chute. That I agree.
@@MaxMustermann-nd4uy well put - my thoughts exactly except you explained it better. LOL
There are two reasons the SR series didn’t get certification without the parachute. Lots of “old time” instructors, including a good friend of mine, died trying to land in a cornfield, while 3 friends I know have walked away pulling it. 1: It can’t recover from a spin. Arguably, with a CFI on board especially, that shouldn’t happen. 2: in 7 out of 10 cases, on flat grass field landings, let alone a corn field as you suggest, because of the low 3” clearance of the wheel pants, and the fwd cg of the engine, the plane cartwheels into a fireball when any other aircraft besides a cirrus could land uneventfully, or at least, without substantial damage causing fatal injuries. The dead CFI who wasn’t a CSIP shared your mindset, because he hadn’t participated in the engineer led safety courses at Cirrus I have, to fully understand the importance of using the chute. Also, I own 2 SR22 planes, as well as a Lance, DA62, and King Air 200, and while the latter 3 show buffeting and signs of impending stall, because of the split wing, the cirrus doesn’t. Not the slightest until the wing snaps over. A non-Cirrus instructor wouldn’t recognize it until it snapped over, and also wouldn’t grab the chute handle out of immediate instinct when it happens, obviously. I have no doubt of your competency, or the dead CFI’s in a 172 or a Malibu, but statistically, the n training flights, 32:1 non-cirrus instructors will perish in the event of engine failure over the CSIP who grabs the handle. For a reason. It takes a lot to unlearn the control we all agree to assume when we lose and engine with respect to maintaining stability all the way to the ground. With the airspeed tape on the very left of the perspective screen, in a panicky cockpit, it would have been a tough task for the right seat CFI vs a CSIP who would have pulled immediately to give canopy time to deploy. Buying a cirrus doesn’t buy additional safety, but additional risk if you don’t use the certification method required by the FAA to avoid cartwheel/fire and spin accidents.
@@muledogmuledog8944 Thank you for your excellent insight and first hand experience. I don't know for sure, but I am under the impression, the CFI did not have CAPS training. If he did, this video would likely not exist. Funny you should mention about the low clearance of the wheel pants. In the sim, the pants looked as though they almost touched the runway ... so again an accurate representation by Flight Simulator. I will add your post into the description of the video to emphasize the importance of Cirrus training and the value of knowing when to pull the chute. Blue skies!
what went wrong with plane for them to need the parachute?
My thoughts on why they didnt pull the chute was I think in the heat of the moment they forgot about it. I fly at a Cirrus SR 20 flight school, and I have heard instructors say numerous times that during simulated emergencies in the sim, students forget about CAPS completely. Just my thoughts from my experiences.
Thanks for your reply! Yes, certainly a possibility! Perhaps, a warning (reminder) should be integrated into the G1000 avionics linked to altitude or engine function as a reminder of CAPS. Very unfortunate for a preventable accident.
Who trains to pull a parachute when the engine fails at pattern altitude near the airport and while flying over corn fields? I've never flown a Cirrus, but I seriously doubt anyone trains for this scenario. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I also question the assumption that pulling the chute is the best action in this situation. Any private pilot and certainly any CFI has flown hundreds of engine out drills and should have been able to bring the plane down without stalling it. I agree with others here that there may be more to uncover.
Regarding the video, my initial impression was that it was a promotional piece by Cirrus, given its content and style. The pilots should not be faulted for "failing" to activate the chute. They probably reacted just as they had been trained. I would have made the same decision.
Thanks for watching and the compliments on video production. The vast majority do not even know about parachutes for GA and hence it is an educational video about the technology. I do not work for Cirrus. I just wanted to make a video about the CAPS technology. There are courses by Cirrus that teach the pilots when and how to pull the shoot in emergency situations. We do not know if the pilots had the CAPS training, but may have saved their lives if it had been pulled. Many unknowns for sure. Blue skies.
your wrong.. I am a SR 22 owner bought it new in 04 so I have some time in make and model.. WE train to make a call out at caps height pull height of 500 to 600 feet agl we verbally call out caps alive.. if engine fails after that call out its instant pull the the red handle and ride it down. If engine fails before caps call out its nose down and land straight ahead mains first of course if able.
I suspect, the pilot felt it was too new an airplane to mess it up deploying the 'chute.
This is a baffling accident. Many things must have gone wrong. I hope we can find out what happened and learn from the tragic loss of these two people. Impressive work on the video!
Thanks for the visit! Appreciate your comments! We hope the NTSB is able to answer some key questions in the final report. Blue skies!
After actually analyzing the flightaware data and the NTSB-Report, the situation was likely the following:
They did two poorly coordinated approaches that were too fast and too high. After the second go-around that was initially OK, the plane did not turn into downwind but continued crosswind, loosing airspeed and then decending (first near stall speed at 60kt ground, 69 kt air speed, then increasing speed again). It seems like they were turning while doing that. Last flightaware was at 500 ft AGL and 81 kt airspeed (72 kt ground speed).
A whitness reports a stall-spin accident at an estimated 200 ft. AGL. The flight controls were intact no flaps were set.
Conditions were good wather, all surrounded by empty corn fields, no icing, no gusts.
To me, it appears as if there was some mishandling going on in the cockpit. Even if there were an engine failure, for which there is no evidence, this plane could have been easily landed. The question should really be what the FI was doing. Was he experienced? Either he was inexperienced or incapacitated, or both pilot and FI got highly distracted, which is hard to imagine.
Agree it sounded like some very serious pilot errors going on in the cockpit. Even without the parachute landing in an open level cornfield even without power should’ve been something that one or both of the pilots could’ve accomplished.
In this particular model stall was exceeded (83 kts upto 95 deoending on weight), so they were up a creek from climb out on 2nd go around and they stayed slow.
Pilots MUST know your planes critical numbers and stay well above it until final is assured. If engine failed then the nose over and immediate chute deployment would have prevented this but they may have though their speed was ok when in fact it wasnt ok.
You can just imagine the 59 year old instructor saying pull the chute! And the newbie owner of the aircraft not wanting to because he believes the aircraft will be less of a wreck if they land it in a cornfield.
Fatal mistake.
So true and it is very unfortunate if that was indeed the exchange of words before making the decision to land the plane into the corn field. Thanks for watching!
Hard to pull the parachute in a stall/spin configuration 800 feet AGL
@@BOLDAviation Thanks for commenting. The ADS-B data over the last 4 minutes shows the aircraft at a low airspeed after exiting the circuit pattern and then assuming a set heading. We may never know the exact problem, but certainly the aircraft was well above the minimum height to pull the chute before the stall.
@@BOLDAviation There have been CAPS saves as low as 600' AGL. Example: CAPS save No.120
Difficult to understand why this should not have been a 'non-event', with or without a parachute.. The aircraft was sufficiently under control, carrying enough speed and with a huge open flat piece of real estate to land on..and, an instructor aboard. Most of these aircraft are selling for around 1 million $$$.. I can't help but think many of them are being sold to people who think that money can buy safety, it can't.. maybe in times of high stress, people are being distracted by TV screens instead of getting the basics right. I recommend sticking with a $75,000 C172 and the simplest of analog instruments for a few hundred hours.
I have flown with and without BRS/Magnum chutes in light sport. I like having them for two reasons, passenger comfort level and having the ultimate backup option. However, I have to agree with you that, in this case, they should have been able to land in one of the many fields that were around them. If the simulation in this video is accurate, they never entered a landing glide. I just don't understand that since there was a CFI on board.
There are a few instances where it makes sense to pull the chute. If both pilots were panicking due to the engine out and didn't feel comfortable with dealing with a dead stick landing, pulling was the option. Otherwise, if the plane is controllable, fly it to the ground, IF the ground is reasonable to land on, which it seemed like was the case.
EDIT: I will also add, that the above is based on light sport, which have very slow stall speeds compared to large GA planes, Cirrus included. I'm about to take delivery on a new Aeroprakt A-22, which has a full flap stall speed of 32 knots. The vertical speed under a chute is just a little slower. In my plane, it's a choice of 32 knots vertical or horizontal. If control is maintained, and there is a reasonable area to land on, it probably makes sense to land the plane. Otherwise, I'd pull the chute and let my landing gear collapse!
Also, I disagree with the notion that analog instruments are the best to learn on. I learned on a CTLS with Dynon displays and analog backup. We didn't mess with the options at all, but I learned how using a PFD. I then transitioned to other planes, some with analog, some with other brands of glass. I spent two years flying an Quicksilver ultralight with nothing more than a Halls airspeed indicator.
My point is that it's the quality of the training, not they systems you train on. However, it IS possible to confuse and cause issues by messing with the capabilities of the glass. In that case, one is better off with simple.
Cheers.
Just don't understand why they didn't fly the plane with proper glide speed to the ground
@@baxterharwell5353 Exactly.. Piloting 101
They didnt push nose over but up. When theres ANY hint of pwr issues, pitch nose down to best glide, aviate, navigate then communicate. Its taught in private pilot and grilldd into you or not. Some cfis are weak. They were climbing out rather slow, 80-85 kts when it is suppord to be over 90-95.. This is the 315hp Turbo and its heavier than the regular models. Thesw planes have small thin tails area and thats not good for low and slow. Its based on the Lancair/cessna columbia which has a much larger tail. They were going way to slow 76kts, basically stalled and barely control hence steep nose down into corn. Folke for those that fly, know your planrs numbers, practice engine out short approaches and do what if's each time you fly. Theres no excuse and far to many ga pilots are not surviving. If you dont fly at least 4 hrs a month, or cant afford it, sell the plane.. Currency for ppl needs to be every 45 days 3 t-n-g's and flt review every 12 mo not 24.
If pilots do not take responsibility the paper pushing rules makers will.
Sounds like a proficiency problem more than an indecisive caps problem sir.
Will be very unfortunate if the instructor was not proficient in the Cirrus aircraft.
@@TheFlightLevel Something must have been mishandled otherwise the plane whould not have crashed nose-down. Unless the aircraft controls were broken.
@@TheFlightLevel I don't understand this at all. Why no caps pull and at the very least know the best glide speed (92 kts SR22T).
@@wagnertenor Yes, there are many puzzling aspects. We don't know if they were trying to land on the first 2 circuits or they were intended to fly over. Perhaps they encountered problems in the circuit and were trying to figure things out. The departure from the circuit and flying for over a mile at circuit height adds to the mystery of why. Certainly they had time to activate the CAPS before the airplane stalled and if dealing with a problem. An IFR flight from Shelbyville back to Bloomington was planned, so they did intend to land.
What are the chances the parachute failed? I see a lot asking why it wasn’t pulled but is there a possibility it was and didn’t deploy? Then it was clearly too late/panic, then the spin.
Thanks for the visit! Absolutely a possibility. There are cases described by the NTSB indicating failure of the CAPS to deploy. One example is outlined here www.avweb.com/aviation-news/285055/
Thank you for posting. Followed this closely due to it being 30mins from home. Wondered what happened
Thanks for watching and commenting. Just incredible to have a modern plane equipped with a parachute and not use it when your engine fails. The one thing we will never know is why the pilots chose not to pull the CAPS handle. Very unfortunate.
great work as always man, unfortunate the accident though. :(
Thanks for the visit! Cheers!
This isn't indecision. It's inability to fly the aeroplane. It clearly stalled and spun-in from low altitude. There was no need to pull the 'chute - there were plenty of places to put the aeroplane down in one piece if the engine had failed and it seems likely that was their aim - until they stalled it.
Thanks for the visit and commenting. With a flight instructor on board you would certainly think this would be the case re landing in a corn field. We will never know the situation in the cockpit. Many claim an aviation accident is usually the blend of more than one issue and there was likely more than one bad decision or indecision when exiting the pattern for the last time.
@@TheFlightLevel This accident was primarily caused by one thing - the pilot exceeding the critical angle of attack at a height where recovery was impossible. Why they did that is what we don't know, but plenty of others have gone the same way and plenty more in future will - usually trying 'the impossible turn' to get back onto the airfield after power loss on take off. Here, they were already in the air of course, and we do not even know if they DID suffer power loss.
I would like to know the condition of the field they were trying to land on. This should have been a successful forced landing. I wonder if there was some feature of the field that caused a last minute panicked control input causing a stall?
electric lines ????????????????
They weren’t trying to land in the field, they were trying to recover from a stall/spin, the witness statements describe just that. I flew over the accident the next day.
Being nose in, it seems likely this was more of a crash than a landing. But yes, it should have been a survivable situation if the pilot had maintained adequate control of the aircraft before touchdown.
@@evandunstone3299 Those aproaches were both way too fast and too high. Not only pilot behind the aircraft, but totally off. 138 kt downwind. It seems like the pilot had little experience in the right power settings and in patternwork and flying approaches.
I have the gut feeling, that this whole operation was doomed. The student bought the fanciest plane he could get (that is a nice cruise machine, but not a good trainer) and then hired some FI, who it seems was not familiar with the aircraft. Maybe for the convenience, maybe to save money. I can't imagine, how this could have happened with an experienced FI.
SO 126 Cirrus have fallen out of the sky....and you think the problem is not using the parachute.
….out of 9000….
Tell us what percentage does 126 out of 9,000 come to?
What was the reason for it descending, and why couldn’t they glide into a field? CAPS should be last choice.
interestingly, landing a Cirrus in a field is not resommended. Listen to episode 303 on Aviation News Talk. The weight and speed of the Cirrus make it a dangerous candidate for field landings. Chute pull is recommended
Ok,
But it still doesn't fully explain why they nosed dived into cornfield?
Did ADSB show they stalled the plane at any time & simply lost airspeed & lift?
The only time planes "fall out of the sky" is if they stalled the wings by forgetting to maintain proper safe glide speed.
Planes are essential Gliders, they can glide safely to land in runway or cornfield as long as one doesn't try to bank or turn or pulls up stalling the plane.
Parachutes are a great Backup system but one must learn & practice how to spot land your plane with a practiced engine out into a open field void of trees etc.
Thanks for watching. An eye witness saw the plane in an apparent stall with the wings vertical at one point in the final seconds very low to the ground. As you eluded to, the pilot perhaps tried to change direction in the final glide path that initiated a stall.
@@TheFlightLevel Well, that fact should have been shown in the video, no? It shows the plane level and there is no mention of the "wings vertical" eyewitness account.
@@aviatorjoe4153 Thanks for watching! Illustrating the aircraft orientation in the simulator as a true depiction is difficult at times to maintain authenticity. The wings vertical account is given in the video description. Cheers!
No, CAPS is NOT a backup system. It's the first option. Only if you have an ensured landing on an airfield, you can consider landing the plane. But engines tend not to fail 1000ft over pattern altitude crossing the runway. And a fast plane like the Cirrus with small wheels and a heavy engine in front has a slim chance of a safe landing in a field, but a 100% chance to survive a CAPS pull within parameters.
Of course also Cirrus transitions and Embark, the complimentary training program for buyers of used Cirrus planes, include engine out landings on an airfield. But more importantly, they include a call out "CAPS available" at 500 or 600ft depending on generation, and a "CAPS" unavailable as well on landing.
If you have a plane that stalls with 30kts and has bush wheels, you might be fine in more fields. But that's not what the Cirrus is.
I think there are a lot of assumptions here and misinformation. First, how do you know they were low approaches and not touch and go? Also, nothing as shown anything about engine issue? The witness stated the airplane looked like it was flying really slow and stalled and attempted to recover which of course there’s no pulling parachute in a stall/spin. Yes I’m close to this unfortunate accident and the FAA called me a few days after it happened.
Whether low approaches or touch and goes is not the issue. Why was the aircraft flying low at circuit height for more than a mile in a westerly heading according to the ADS-B data before the stall? The instructor would surely not demonstrate slow flight at a low altitude.
If there was an engine issue, it could be plausible for any evidence of it to have been lost in the crash. Engine trouble would help explain how they got into a stall-spin situation as well.
@@erich930 Absolutely re the power loss and stall-spin recovery! The aircraft was completely destroyed in the subsequent fire which will hinder the identification of engine issues post accident.
How dose a plane like that have such a disastrous landing when one of the occupants is an instructor, having said that I live in Nelson New Zealanders and we had a plane crash over in Blenheim about 100 miles from Nelson were there was an air craft with to Nelson flying instructors in the small plan and the aero club secretary and some how they managed to crash the plan into a hill face when coming into land, go figure, fortunately they all made it out alive, but after that it almost put me of flying as I was training for my PPE at the time in the early 1990’s.
your comment is factually incorrect about not being able to recover from a spin. It has been demonstrated and procedure is published for European certification.
just because your aircraft is equipped with a parachute doesn't mean to forget everything you learned about emergency landings. CAPS is a relatively new line of safety measures...more of a crutch in my opinion. "why practice emergency landings when i can pull the chute"
The BRS is there because the plane cannot recover from a spin. The spin in this incident occurred apparently at 200 ft above ground, too late to pull the chute. Why they got into a spin is definitely pilot error, as it was all open, empty fields, good weather, no icing, no gusts.
@@MaxMustermann-nd4uy Spin recovery is apart of training...The chute does not replace training. I can see using it perhaps over water, or mountainous terrain, but, still shouldn't be used as a "plan A"
@@xbpbat21x The reason the Cirrus got the BRS is that it was mandated because it is impossible to recover from a spin. So in a Cirrus, this is plan A, by design.
@@MaxMustermann-nd4uy that is not true. Cirrus aircraft can recover from a spin. To make sure that the pilot has the best chance of survival the POH says deploy CAPS. This does not mean that it can't recover.
@@wagnertenor The BRS was a requirement for certification because of the poor spin characteristics.
Question: were they missed approaches or was it planned training?
Thanks for the visit. We don't know and may never know. They did intend to land and return IFR according to the flight instructor FB page.
Would the CAPS also prevent fire?
The aircraft descends at 17kts under a fully opened chute. Very unlikely for an engine fire upon impact with ground with the landing gear absorbing the energy.
Just watched another video in which a guy lost his engine over the Rockies and was able to successfully land at Aspen. He had more altitude to play with but even this engine out was at an altitude that should have allowed a turn back to the airport and even if it didn't there were plenty of cornfields in front of him. I was under the impression (and I'm not a Cirrus pilot) that the reason they have the CAPS is because it can be difficult to recover from a spin. Is Cirrus teaching that the response to losing an engine is to pull the chute? Guess it's a way to sell more planes but I spent many hours learning to fly and land a dead stick plane. Maybe the newer pilots are relying too much on technology. My first cross country was done with 2 OMNI's and a map in my lap looking for the name of the town on a smokestack. The new technology is great and I love having a magenta line showing me where I am and where I'm going as well as having the Garmin lock onto the approach and fly it for me but there is something to be said for ded reckoning and old fashioned stick and rudder skills.
Thanks for the visit! Yes, you are correct about the difficulty and time required to recover from a spin. Very true about basic piloting skills. I am under the impression at this point that something very wrong occurred in the cockpit that we are not aware of. Your cross country experience reminds me of my flight test where the chief pilot pointed out a creek on the map as an alternate to fly to. I never need find the creek as it had dried up. Circled a few times around the correct location and the CP never broke his examination expression! He did pass me though!
I had to put on my glasses and confirm that people are arguing that we can’t know whether they should have used CAPS. As if there might be an option that would make the outcome worse.
Man oh man, do people enjoy being contrarian on here.
Thank you and exactly! I will likely pin your comment after the current pinned comment gets a little airtime! Cheers!
He had two opportunities to land on the runway. Did the pilot lack the skills to land the aircraft? Looking at the landscape there was no shortage of flat fields where he could set down. As in the case of GA accidents, 90% are due to pilot error. That says to me that there is a problem with aviation pilot training in the USA.
Yeah it says to you a completely wild insane statement? One guy crashes and now all the pilots and a giant country need better training? Pretty simple really. Everybody has a right to buy an airplane if they got enough money in America and some people don't have enough sense to pilot a goose. When you have a place this big with this many pilots are going to have crashes. Your kind of thinking works best in a place like Liechtenstein or something where they have very few people.
This is instructors fault. Once engine failed, take controls, maintain best glide speed, and land straight ahead in field. Caps not necessary.
Nice video, thanks. Maybe hesitation because with parachute you do not know on top of who or what you may land, eg family? Cheers.
Thanks for the visit! Yes, the time for an indecision goes by very quickly when you are only 1000’ above the ground.
It was empty land. The only reason to use the chute is loss of control or obstructed terrain. In this case, loss of control occurred according to whitness around 200 ft above ground, too late to pull the chute. How they got into that situation, we don't know.
They could have also simply flown the plane, parachute or not. Based on info from this video.
Well, the real question should be about the reasons why Cirrus planes have so many problems that they need to deploy their parachutes. If it didn't break down in flight, I wouldn't need a parachute!
An awful lot of the CAPS deployments seem to be due to mechanical issues with the plane. Maybe the failures are not statistically higher for the Cirrus than for other GA planes, but I’m curious.
Thanks for the visit. The aircraft was completely destroyed by the subsequent fire post-impact and I assume it will be difficult for the NTSB to determine if mechanical issues played into the accident. Thanks for raising this point as I was not aware of this.
This is a real thing. Curious if the instructor was a CSIP
Tell will tell if the instructor was a Cirrus trained pilot. Doubly unfortunate if he was!
This has an "impossible turn" feel to it. Accelerated stall in steep turn, blah blah etc Instructor should have taken controls, best glide, land straight ahead in field.
I can't comprehend this in any way, but it's very fishy!! They left the crosswind leg to do what when they were in trouble? worried about the insurance company losing money?? :(
This video had the potential to be great if it weren’t so long and drawn out, especially when showing the FlightAware data and then repeating itself with the same exact scene but now a 3D reenactment.
Thanks for watching! Appreciate all points of view. Flight sim is my hobby and adds to the authenticity. Some would complain too boring without the simulation and therefore I always include time stamps so people have the option to skip to parts of the video at will. Blue skies!
To bad we dont have a cheap way to collect CRV data but once you get the FAA involved that technology would cost like $25K per install. It would be interesting to hear what goes on for these types of emergencies.
Thanks for watching! So true! It just seems so incredible how some accidents occur. Having the technology you mentioned would sure help to understand the emergency situation evolving and playing out.
I guess if a cause of malfunction is an engine failure, most pilots pulling a chute consider low competence vs gliding a plane to land it.
I understand that the CAPS has saved lives but the figures are exaggerated since the assumption is that a non-parachute airplane in the same circumstance would have experienced a fatal crash. This is not the case most of the time. Hundreds of airplanes a year have engine failures and in a great majority of the time land off airport and survive. When they don’t survive, it is due to loss of control when attempting to make the airport with insufficient altitude/airspeed.
Always use the CAPS on a cirrus if the only option is an off field landing. This has been reviewed over and over again. The cirrus lands too fast (its not a cessna) and will dig in, burn, and flip if you try to land off field. Please listen to Max Trescotts podcast covering this, since he is one of the top instructors and aviators alive with vast experience in the cirrus. Use the CAPS.
Thanks for your comments. Many have criticized the issue of using CAPS over piloting the aircraft into the field. It is increasingly evident that CAPS is the way to go in a Cirrus for the reasons you indicate. A link to Max Trescott’s podcast is provided in the description. Excellent advice!
So sad to see this, but 105 on base and nearly 100 knots on final is far too fast. Unfortunately he made some low hour pilots mistakes....ultimately CAPS should have been deployed. RIP
So there have been 126 parachute deployments from Cirrus aircraft in the last five weeks before this video was posted. What the hell is wrong with cirrus aircraft.
total pulls 126. not the last 5 weeks
Not very smart, you could have just pushed the ESC key.
Oh, and I appreciate it when RUclips air crash videomakers use MSFS instead of an obsolete sim like XPlane. Thank you.
Well, thank you. I probably would not be making this type of video if MSFS had not come along. The scenery realism compared to XPlane certainly adds to the video quality and atmosphere. Cheers!
X-Plane is by no means obsolete, I train with X-Plane on my BATD and sight see with MSFS. Both simulators have their place, also visually .. at least in the Mojave Desert of So.Cal., I find the ortho scenery of Orbx TE So.Cal. and vStates Arizona and Nevada more true to life of what I actually see irl flying.
I just built a high-rise building. The city wouldn't certify it for occupancy unless every resident is wearing a parachute...... expensive units, but the view is great!
This has very little to do with the parachute given the terrain here
engine failure FI my aircraft he reaches up and pulls the shoot.. end of story of what should have happened. Sr 22 owner here with many hours with different Csips and annual recurrent training.
Thanks for the visit! Good to hear from Cirrus owners! Engine failure or not ... the parachute is available so use it when things are going wrong.
at 200’?
Wrong engine noise simulation, sounds like a twin
No control over the sounds! Definitely room for improvement. Thanks for the visit! Blue skies!
Airplanes are not toys. Just because you can afford to own one, does not give you the right to stupidly endanger yourself and those operating in this same blue sky. If you like airplanes as your toys, spend the money and hire a professional pilot to fly with you around all the time. You will be surprised of the discovery, and what it takes to stay alive in this business!
pisses me off. trying to save a plane over a life. dammit
They should stop fitting Continentals in them
Thanks for the visit. Continental engines have a bad history in the Cirrus aircraft?
These piston SHITS have so many engine failures & they sell for over a million !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHOCKING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That’s because they spend a lot of the money on the parachute and full short on the rest of the plane.