old man emu Posted October 8, 2023 Share Posted October 8, 2023 What happened to High for Dry and Low for H2O? I've always associated high pressure systems with calm to gentle breezes if any, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFguy Posted October 8, 2023 Share Posted October 8, 2023 I think the only thing that will come out of this in wreckage is whether the rocket in the BRS got triggered, or not. Air services might also have access to might higher time resolution data than presented on flightradar / flightaware. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markdun Posted October 8, 2023 Share Posted October 8, 2023 Glen, if it had a glass panel there maybe data on a chip ( that’sa very big maybe though). I know ATSB has some skills at trying to recover data from chips burned and smashed because my brother did a course on this prior to retirement. He was amazed at what could be recovered. Still there focus was on heavies and it’s most likely they won’t consider it worthwhile for a GA non-commercial flight. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 8, 2023 Share Posted October 8, 2023 The spacing of the Isobars gives the best indication of wind speeds, whether it's a high or a Low The properties of the Airmass will determine whether you get rain or not as well but highs have descending air so tend to be colder and therefore dryer. Tropical Maritime air masses tend to have the most water associated with them and therefore the most energy. (Cyclones). Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted October 8, 2023 Share Posted October 8, 2023 The family breaks silence on the accident. Story, photos here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgmwa Posted October 8, 2023 Share Posted October 8, 2023 It's bad enough that the plane crashed killing the pilot, but losing the three children as well makes it particularly tragic. I don't know how any family could cope with this. 2 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted October 8, 2023 Share Posted October 8, 2023 i wonder if the pilot had a medical episode. that would explain the climb and stall. the 3 kids probably would not know how to pull the chute. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFguy Posted October 8, 2023 Share Posted October 8, 2023 I used to fly regularly in a mate's SR20. He told me that no matter who the passenger or age, he made sure they knew when to and how to deploy the CAPS (chute) . If they were too small to pull it, then they didnt fly... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted October 8, 2023 Share Posted October 8, 2023 That doesn't fill me with confidence to fly in a SR20. It is like saying "If you can't land this aircraft you can't fly with me". 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 8, 2023 Share Posted October 8, 2023 The chute is mandated on that plane. The analogy doesn't hold. Having said that, It's not a plane I would choose to buy. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 A poor workman blames his tools ??????? From this article: Cirrus: A Sober Look - Aviation Safety WWW.AVIATIONSAFETYMAGAZINE.COM A series of accidents has tarred the reputation of what was supposed to be the safest GA airplane ever made. But is that an accurate picture? An honest look at the Cirrus accident record. The high percentage of Cirrus accidents that are fatal appears to reflect how the airplanes are used-as all-weather, cross-country machines-by pilots not necessarily trained or experienced enough for that kind of operation. All the safety gadgets Cirrus has added, including the parachute, haven't proved capable of overcoming a lack of skill or basic errors in judgment by pilots, just as with all the airplanes flown before. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 It's very likely, but still a generalisation. I'm inclined to think Incapacitation in this case with icing. I think all of the plane came down together. I doubt we will ever CONCLUSIVELY KNOW. Nev 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 It is the modern version of the v-tailed doctor killer, for the same reasons. More aeroplane than the wealthy buyers can manage. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabiru7252 Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 I was under the impression that the Cirrus was difficult or impossible to recover once in a spin. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 6 minutes ago, Jabiru7252 said: I was under the impression that the Cirrus was difficult or impossible to recover once in a spin. May 29, 2019 #4 My impressions are that the Cirrus are more spin resistant but once you get into a spin it is very difficult to get out of one. (The opposite is also true, the planes that are easier to spin are easier to get out of the spin) It is not good to spin an airplane at low altitudes (1000 feet or less is usually fatal). From the below article To link the rate of “fatal mishaps per year”, the NTSB database was used to find out, how many fatal accidents are stall/spin-related. For the period from 1999 – July 2008 the following numbers were determined for some types of aircraft. Cessna C172 19% Piper PA28 8% Mooney M-20 16% Cirrus SR20/22 26% Percentage of stall/spin-related fatal accidents for some aircraft types it is evident that the amount of stall/spin related fatal accidents of the SR20/22 is considerably higher-than-average. Assuming that the typical mission profiles of a Cessna 172 and an SR20/22 are equivalent (same flight time in low speed phases), and the SR20/22 complies with the requirements according FAR23.221(2), it must be ascertained a contradiction that the SR20/22, as the aircraft with a lower “tendency to spin”, has more than double the rate of “stall/spin-related fatal mishaps per year” than the Cessna 172 (see 6.2.4), as the aircraft which complies only with the spinning code but not with the FAA spin resistance option. The article below also recommends the following depending on certification A placard “AVOID STALL! DO NOT SPIN! Spin recovery has not been demonstrated.” must be placed in a highly visible position at the instrument panel. Remarks: Most pilots are probably not aware that their aircraft is designed under a principally different regulation as regards the stall and spin behaviour (e.g. the difference between C350 and C400). As a result, they risk entering a flight state that is not recoverable. Clearer information must be given to the pilot to prevent intentional and unintentional spinning. As most of the pilots are not aware of the conceptual difference between spin recoverable aircraft and spin resistant aircraft, the wording of the placard must differ from the standard placard. “Spins prohibited” is not appropriate for spin resistant aircraft 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 It's NOT spin certified. Thats why the BRS Chute is mandated.. Accident and fatalities are on record. I haven't seen a comprehensive analysis of it's flight characteristics but the tail looks as if it is shielded more than some are. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 1 minute ago, facthunter said: It's NOT spin certified. Thats why the BRS Chute is mandated.. Accident and fatalities are on record. I haven't seen a comprehensive analysis of it's flight characteristics but the tail looks as if it is shielded more than some are. Nev i found the comment above with a quick search. lots of talk over the years on the subject. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 You need to tell the aeroplane that spins are prohibited. I don't agree with the statement about ease of getting into and out of a spin being directly related. it's more complex than what that statement would have you believe There are obvious and tried design aspects/methods of making that plane better to be able to recover from spins so why hasn't that been attempted? Nev 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 To answer my own question It would appear that from a marketing approach the concept of the BRS chute has been "MADE" the answer. I'm not a fan of lawyers being involved vicariously but there would appear to be a possibility of a challenge where a known "fault" in the handling is taken care of by a safety device with usage limitations as a policy. . Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFguy Posted October 9, 2023 Share Posted October 9, 2023 (edited) I'd buy a Cirrus if I could....(except for lack of payload/baggage ) - the BRS - Would solve the flight at night over in hospitable terrain issue without needing a twin and all the complications that go with a twin.... But.. engine kill needs to be mandatory with chute deployment. Maybe it already does that. A few 182s have BRS installed. Not a bad fit.... The Cirrus SR20 is a inexpensive plane per mile (after you've paid for it) - backed off, 238mL/nm at 135TAS... (My Archer is 260mL/nm at 120TAS @ 11k') But, baggage capacity, for me is a bit of a not starter. 130lbs max. and a puny baggage door. My Archer is a load hauler , 200 lbs in the back...plus what I can fit when rear seats are removed (another 300 lbs) . (cant easily do either in the Cirrus) . My next plane is an Arrow4. Edited October 9, 2023 by RFguy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 10, 2023 Share Posted October 10, 2023 On the stats, a surprising number of SR 's catch fire. the 22 is the hotrod. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFguy Posted October 10, 2023 Share Posted October 10, 2023 (edited) and a fire in a composite plane is no good... I'm surprised if a well maintained aircraft would catch fire in flight. (not really saying much, I think we'd all be surprised if our aircraft caught fire). The 120 kts to the ground though isnt all that fast in controlled flight for that aircraft . So I dunno about a fire.....would have though pilot would adopt the inflight fire suggestion in the POH. (which is get down as fast as possible) . So I am discounting a fire in probability. and that the aircraft looks like it was in one piece when it 'landed' vertically. Edited October 10, 2023 by RFguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 10, 2023 Share Posted October 10, 2023 The "fires" I'm talking of relate to POST crashes. Fire is not the Cause in that circumstance. Vertical speed RoD to contact above say 60 MPH are where it's usually fatal. Some spinning aircraft achieve that. (light Aircraft). Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 10, 2023 Share Posted October 10, 2023 44 minutes ago, RFguy said: and a fire in a composite plane is no good... I'm surprised if a well maintained aircraft would catch fire in flight. (not really saying much, I think we'd all be surprised if our aircraft caught fire). The 120 kts to the ground though isnt all that fast in controlled flight for that aircraft . So I dunno about a fire.....would have though pilot would adopt the inflight fire suggestion in the POH. (which is get down as fast as possible) . So I am discounting a fire in probability. and that the aircraft looks like it was in one piece when it 'landed' vertically. Go on ATSB; I can remember several from just leaving the oil cap off, and looking at the wiring of some of the home builds there's room for a few shrts as well. There's a long thread on it here after some fires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted October 10, 2023 Share Posted October 10, 2023 Given we know little, bar the impact it could have been a fire but a big maybe. The dire need to get to ground and out of the aircraft means a pilot can easily exceed vne and jam / wreck controls. Can easily lead to airframe failure or even just loss of control. Given the destruction it could have been burning in flight but post crash is more likely. Weather or health related or pilot error or any combination are possible, as is mechanical failure. Sadly a tragedy we may never truly understand. 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