Yes, every time I read that report (and I read it 5 times) i almost started to YELL at the pilot: “LAND, THERE’S A RUNWAY BENEATH YOU!”
EuroFlyer wrote:
and still took 3 kids with him ?
Beg your pardon ?
In short, he totally overestimated his own capabilities and had no clue how to operate the airplane.
The question in my mind in such cases is, who the heck let this guy loose on this airplane?
When we do transition training onto my airplane, the pilots will not be left to fly it in command until they have demonstrated that they know the systems and can handle the plane as required. In the US, I understand that insurances can get pretty shirty with people who are low experience and get them to fly with instructors or safety pilots for a period of time, if they are low time? There were a lot of holes in that Swiss Cheese and they lined up nicely to make this happen…
Alexis wrote:
“LAND, THERE’S A RUNWAY BENEATH YOU!”
I don’t think he could have landed on 16, probably he was too fast and in a bad position. But he could have flown a circuit to 28 easily, or even to 32. Or set himself up once he was VMC and gather his bearings somewhere safe and then do a normal VMC approach.
One of the most common pilots prayers… “oh lord, don’t let me screw up!” Failed with that guy.
(US Cirrus accident)
I think that the stress (obvious in his voice) played a big part in this. Ever tried to calculate something in an airplane under stress? Maybe he was not that bad, but he was clearly under big stress and we have no idea about the situation on board. Of course he made a couple of wrong, and finally deadly, decisions, that much is clear.
I don’t think he could have landed on 16,
I can’t recall the details now, but in a situation like this I would cut the power, full flaps and slip it down. But whatever – he was in VMC and not able to fly a tight pattern. He could have landed 1 km down the runway!
Yet, it was NOT a “Cirrus accident” at all. It was a typical accident where a guy has no idea what his airplane is capable of and where he totally lost the plot and flew a very much servicable airplane into the ground.
There are loads of examples where pilots f°°k up when systems fail. Even airline crews. And the latter can’t blame lack of training, but as private airplanes get increasingly complex at least in the failure modes, private pilots will screw up.
When your screens go black you need to keep your act together.
Yep, one risk with the high tech airplanes is that you really get used to the avionics and think that all that nice stuff will always work.
I hand flew for 25 years … but with the SR22 I really have to force myself to hand fly approaches, because it is so comfortable to simply push a couple of buttons and twist some knobs …
Alexis wrote:
I can’t recall the details now, but in a situation like this I would cut the power, full flaps and slip it down. But whatever – he was in VMC and not able to fly a tight pattern. He could have landed 1 km down the runway!
He did not have flaps available due to the electrical failure. Nor did he have manual trim. Autotrim did work however.
The pattern shown in the picture may be misleading as he probably was more south than the PFD recorded. ATC told him that he was approaching the runway cross, even though also this was not correct. But as he was also overweight, landing on the remaining part of 16 would have been “easier” but was never considered.
Also the Tower apparently never saw him, that is why he received a landing clearance for 14. They only learnt where he was after the observer told them.
(SUST)
This is a close up of the plot. The met station is where the red arrow is.
But we digress here. If you are in ZRH some time, I can show you the exact locations of all this first hand.
As to the subject of the thread, I can only say that things like this don’t make it easier for pax to determine whom to trust and whom not. But that is not something limited to aviation accidents.
As to the subject of the thread, I can only say that things like this don’t make it easier for pax to determine whom to trust and whom not. But that is not something limited to aviation accidents.
How were the “paying passengers” (mentioned earlier) acquired?
The manner in which that’s done (the manner in which a passenger was acquired whether paying or not) is going to play a big part in their appreciation of the risk.
And it’s pretty obvious that publicly advertised flights will generate a higher expectation of passenger safety. I know this is an argument against the flight sharing websites etc but I did say I have no hard view either way on whether legalising that was a good idea.
Yes, I forgot about the flaps! But you can slip it down without flaps. I would have landed on the remaining part of 16, should have worked. From the picture you can see that he had to squeeze it in real tight, and that’s a recipe for desaster. Why do pilots do that again and again. He could have overshot the centerline and , I think, he still could have landed safely.
There was a very similar Cirrus accident, with a CFI (!) on board in Florida where the pilot tried to force the airplane onto the centerline and pulled … both dead.
