Don’t really need any special training for that then.
Peter wrote:
An SR20 can be described as “underpowered” but that is not a reason to crash into terrain.
The only thing you have to do is to start climb on time.
Almost certainly they were flying in IMC.
Eye witnesses saw the aircraft just before the accident in VMC but very low (claiming less than 200 ft but it’s not easy to estimate altitude), close to rising terrain which was obscured by low clouds, according to same eye witnesses “fog and rain”. So I would conclude that after last seen in VMC they entered IMC and collided with terrain.
An SR20 can be described as “underpowered” but that is not a reason to crash into terrain.
Almost certainly they were flying in IMC.
Emir wrote:
SR20, 3 POB, full of fuel…
You’re right in pointing that out to me; I had a quick look at a POH copy I could find (http://www.aeroccidente.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/POH-Cirrus-SR20.pdf), and the enroute climb tables on pages 5-19 and 5-20 give at full weight and ISA at 4000ft at least 350 ft per nm resp. 600 fpm – OK, that’s not great, I kinda had hoped for better performance as I was unconsciously biased by having my lightweight little steed in mind.
Probably biased, but I fail to see why it was – especially with a nicely-equipped Cirrus – for them seemingly so difficult to get away from probably bad weather by climbing…
SR20, 3 POB, full of fuel…
Sebastian_H wrote:
Probably biased, but I fail to see why it was – especially with a nicely-equipped Cirrus – for them seemingly so difficult to get away from probably bad weather by climbing … when I f*cked up some time ago by questionable decisionmaking and ended in IMC with doubtful knowledge about the cloud base, ground situation, etc., it was a no-brainer to trust my AI and ASI, climb away from hard things that might hurt, and advise ATC about my emergency. Did cost me club privileges, of course, but better getting a bollocking on the ground than a headstone …
I met someone with well-equipped Cirrus who can’t load RNP+AP, why? “he does not have time to do IR TK exams at 60 years old”
I recall your post, I still think that is how any PPL should learn and practice how to handle it: you fly IMC above MSA or VMC on top later on you request ILS, LPV or SRA (or even cloud-break on VMC/GPS/IPad in safe area), if one has AP or GPS, they use it to enhance safety,
I am in minority, another minority prefer turn back and descending, the majority prefer to fly in the ground 
172driver wrote:
I’ve now had a look at the FlightAware track. Interesting, to put it mildly. They must have skimmed treetops and/or roofs in some parts of their trip. Question to our Dutch friends here: I know there aren’t any mountains in Holland, but during training do you never go higher than 3-4k ft?
Bit late to the party, here’s my 2 cents; during PPL training four years ago in Rotterdam we were mostly limited to scud running by the massive class A on top, and the new Lelystad airspace limits a bit the FL55 class E on the south end of the IJsselmeer en route to northern Germany. With the short renting windows available, I doubt that anyone from my club regularly flies more than the usual hourly hop within the Netherlands or close by where the landscape is almost 2D.
What is annoying is in my opinion the mismanagement of the airspace, especially the massive class B in the east: everytime I come back from Germany and pootle happily along at FL95, Beek and DutchMIL (i.e. the Netherland’s FIS) force me down to FL55 or below which is idiotic as I could easily stay high and gradually descend towards Rotterdam. So I’m not surprised that they crept along close to ground level since that’s what they were probably used to.
Probably biased, but I fail to see why it was – especially with a nicely-equipped Cirrus – for them seemingly so difficult to get away from probably bad weather by climbing … when I f*cked up some time ago by questionable decisionmaking and ended in IMC with doubtful knowledge about the cloud base, ground situation, etc., it was a no-brainer to trust my AI and ASI, climb away from hard things that might hurt, and advise ATC about my emergency. Did cost me club privileges, of course, but better getting a bollocking on the ground than a headstone …
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I think once again it’s difficult to compare. Many FI’s in the US are usually pretty fresh themselves and on the way to their 1500 hrs to get their ATPL. So they are quite up to speed. Lots of FI’s here are folks who have been teaching for a very long time and never flew anything serious, nor had the ambition.
I think that’s the main point. FIs. The “Syllabus” whatever that consists of is for the FIs to teach the minimum stuff required, it’s not created for the student to learn “all that is necessary” to suddenly become a 500h pilot. FIs comes in many shapes. Most come straight from school themselves and have no experience to draw from. Others have been FIs for years, but never flown “true GA” or commercially over some period continuously.
For the students it makes little difference how/what they learn, as long as they learn to fly. A fresh FI with little or no real world experience can only do that if he/she has a plan to follow.
I fully agree, the best way to do those things which are not part of the PPL syllabus on your own at your time.
It is also a good thing to make people aware that such stuff exists and is available even locally.
IMHO it would also be a good thing that post this accident the training scene in those countries might step back and think about what happened and how to avoid repetitions.
We should also consider that a SR20 is not necessarily a base trainer. And performance training is part of the type familiarisation, or at least should be. We do it with every pilot we put on the Mooney.
No, we don’t need additional rules, but we need the current ones (PPL Syllabus) followed and if necessarily adapted in order to provide better value for the same money. I think this is not a goal people will object to too much.
