Gnarly Gnu Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 "U.S. Coast Guard video captured the traumatic moments during which a single engine Cirrus SR-22 aircraft, traveling from Tracy, California, to Mahului, Hawaii, ran out of fuel while in mid-air." Pilot is safe. Claim in comments section - apparently was on it's way to Australia & had a fuel valve problem? (Click for video clip, it's worth watching... can't embed here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Wow, that's the second one in 2 days, who'da thunk it! http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/nice-brs-save-cirrus-out-of-fuel-over-ocean.130340/#post-473988 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarly Gnu Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Ha, didn't see that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 In high wing aircraft I was taught to unlatch the door during descent not just to avoid the door getting jambed but to enable the cockpit to fill with water quickly so that you could exit quickly. Leaving the door closed would make it virtually impossible to open the door until the cabin had filled with water. Not good with passengers trapped in the back. Alan. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Cirrus had their Asian open day just recently with many Asian pilots testing them ... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 You can unlatch the door if you think it may jamb but if the plane is going to possibly submerge It might be better to keep the water out. Quite often the door is integral to the longitudinal strength of the aircraft, always do what the POH says! I'm all for leaving the door closed and keeping the water out! ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Quite often the door is integral to the longitudinal strength of the aircraft, always do what the POH says! I'm all for leaving the door closed and keeping the water out! ;) Here's a fact to think about; If the plane went under, about 1000kgs of force via water pressure would be applied onto the door and you will have 'Buckleys and Nunn' chance of opening it. Only when the cabin had completely filled with water, about 2 minutes later, would you be able to open it. Due to stress and panic, you would run out of breathe in less than 1 minute ...... The math is fact and the result = Dead. There's 2 very informative Mythbusters episodes dealing with it that have veritably saved lives, well worth the watch and might just save one of you bloke's lives. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 f the plane went under, about 1000kgs of force via water pressure would be applied onto the door and you will have 'Buckleys and Nunn' chance of opening it. Only when the cabin had completely filled with water, about 2 minutes later, would you be able to open it. Due to stress and panic, you would run out of breathe in less than 1 minute ...... Aircraft are made of aluminium and they float, they don't normally sink until the fuel tanks fill with water. Even fuel has a lower SG than water and will float helping to keep the aircraft buoyant for a time. You are more likely to sink, with the doors open! Furthermore the survival rate from ditching is between 82% for open water and 93% for rivers, which indicates that a high percentage of ditching's are survivable. This information is getting a little old now, but still very valid and worth a read. http://www.avweb.com/news/safety/183010-1.html?redirected=1 http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm Cheers, HH. PS: Contrary to popular belief, the fatality rate is higher among low wing types, than high wing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I would suggest retraced gear is a big advantage with any configuration. With low wing if a wingtip hits firmly first, you are in.strife. as it yaws sharply. Normally, there is a double impact with the second one being more firm and may bury the nose section for a while. Extended U/C tends to take control out of your hands as there is so much drag lower down. Leaving the gear down on a floatplane is generally a serious matter for the same reason. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I thought maybe we would see some footage shot from the cruise ship if he was close enough. Meanwhile someone here in Australia is going to be disappointed that their brand new very expensive Cirrus is now an artificial reef. Bummer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Cirrus had their Asian open day just recently with many Asian pilots testing them ... Hell that must have been real peeeve off noisy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Good for the factory. Insurance will go up. Having passengers in the other one is crazy with single engined aircraft on that route. Should be minimum crew, only. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 From what I read the other plane wasn't on the exact same route, it was travelling between the islands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Be a bit hard to put that Cessna on the Mainland to Maui route with 4 POB. California to Hawaii is a looongg waaay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffd Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 yes apparently technical fault with fuel transfer was what i read via facebook ,he was in contact with the u s coastguard letting them know what was happening.i suppose at the end of the day a good save but the dragging thru the water was certainly dangerous enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/accidents/cirrus-sr22-pilot-releases-selfie-video-ditching?src=SOC&dom=fb Cockpit view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I wonder why he didn't check all his fuel tanks when he was closer to California? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Good point.. Probably relied on an electric pump and like tip tanks should be made available early and prior to being at a point where you could not return. If transfer wasn't successful..Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 The S22 used on the around the world flight by the 19 year old Australian had the 3 seats removed and a 160 us gal tank fitted so i'd say this may be the norm for ferry flights and to keep cg in range they may just top up the wing tanks or use fuel from the aux tanks. Normal range is around 1000nml or 5.5 hrs. Around the 7 hr mark something stopped working. Once again we will have to wait until the report is released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Back in the seventies they ferried several Nomads over to the states. Dave Belton from the Thruster factory led the team. We made the tie downs and plumbing for the trip. Simple 8 x 200ltr drums upright and strapped down with cable all plumbed together and pumps linked into the aircraft fuel system. Worked fine on the first trip when two flew across together. Next trip pump failed just over two thirds the way between Hawaii and California. They had a spare but when they went to swap it they realized that when they opened the system both engines would fail,and fuel would drain back into the cabin. Doh. two shutoff valves short. Coast Guard escorted them and they crossed the coast and landed at the first airport with just enough fuel to vacate the runway. The Nomads went 30% over max weight. They did one test flight from Sydney to Brisbane at that weight. I was amazed they did not blow a tyre or two during the take off. Rate of climb was almost non existent. Ferry flying must get in your blood as i was speaking to David last year and he still does it mainly with Dash 8s and was just about to take a Caravan from the US to Europe via Greenland with his son Shane. want good bucks for that i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 They might even be real clever and go for a rearward Cof G for efficiency reasons, but it's crazy management to not prove the extra fuel carried before a critical point where you can return if all of it doesn't transfer. It has to be fuel AVAILABLE or it's cargo. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Must admit I don't understand how he got so far without apparently realising that the aux tank fuel wouldn't transfer. In every plane I've ever flown, aux or ferry tank fuel is used as early as possible for the very reason that you need to know if it's working before you get to your PNR (main fuel). If there's a CoG problem in doing this, that becomes a major system design issue. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 If the cirrus won't recover from a spin then maybe it has a cg issue. burning off weight i'd prefer nose down nothing efficient with aft cg except dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Especially with floatplanes but also with others.it is advantageous to have a rearward Cof G. It is more dangerous and certainly has to stay in the range but for a long flight a noseheavy situation would certainly use more fuel, as the tailplane applies a downforce constantly which adds to the load the wing must carry. and therefore more drag. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I think you got it ass up FH. nose high more drag trim nose down more speed i think you yanking my chain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now