Thanks for your explanation. I fully understand about cruising through the ocean air, with it or against it. I know that airplanes react to the air in which it is flying, with it or against it. My mistake here was speaking in the vernacular of the instructor whose demonstration was meant to show what could happen if you didn't pay attention to the airspeed when you were in the pattern because some students had serious incidents when they watched the ground to gage their airspeed instead of their instruments. This phenomenon was not isolated to new civilian students, quite a few cadets were killed in BT-13's during the war when they let their speed get too low in the pattern and executed sharp and steep turns. I flew one several times and they could stall very quickly if they were abused. Their wing had no twist and an almost symmetrical airfoil so the stall was at the tips. Back to the discussion. Again, this demonstration was to show that letting your speed drop off and then making a steep turn from the downwind could cause a stall. Your airplane doesn't give a hoot because you have maintained airspeed, I think. I have played around in the Stearman by slowly throttling back and keeping the nose up and then started a steep bank. The result was always the same. I shouldn't mention it but I have been flying on and off for 70 years and I have flown close to 40 different airplanes from sailplanes up to and including the DC-3 and I never had a problem. I would never have survived 20 years in PD if I didn't have a modicum of smarts. I don't think that I'm communicating here so I'm leaving it.
Whoa guys! I think you're all saying the same thing here - Just termed slightly differently. I'm certainly no pilot, as many of you are, but I do have a reasonable understanding of the physics involved. (Built a wind tunnel in college.) This is one of the more "intelligent" forums here - Please let's discuss aeronautics and piloting & not get into the pissing contests that haunt so many other areas. Cheers, Ian
I flew with a new instructor a couple of months ago doing crosswind landings off Lake Erie. He said the same thing. Fly it as a low approach and if you are stabilized, land. Otherwise go around. I was like duh. I agree that I would have diverted after two bad approaches.
She got no help from ATC, who should have been able to see she was really having problems. Busy airports with ATC personnel used to dealing mostly with pros are tough for amateurs.
That's why its good to take lessons at a busy airport ( VNY ) instead of in the middle of a field with no tower ( Santa Paula ) sure the flying skills are the same but doing it all while having your ears full as well, is a different experience all together. Personally I thought ATC was very calm, professional and helpful as he could be, She didn't ask for help, and had she done so maybe the outcome would be different.
If true..ego should never get into the way of safety, but it does..sad, still don't know why the chute wasn't deployed earlier though
Agree that gaining cockpit management skills in a busy ATC is important, but would debate whether flying skills are the same. Getting primary training on a 5000x100 runway is very different than a 2000x20 runway with the wingtips hanging over snow drifts along the edges (and landing in less than 2000ft on a 5000 runway is not the same as landing on a 2000ft runway).
I'd bet you are right. She was at 400' on the first ATC initiated go around, around 200' when she initiated the 2nd go around, 100' on the 3rd and had gotten to around 400' climbing out somewhere near the fatal turn. Re the CAPS system: "The demonstrated loss of altitude was 400 feet from level flight and 920 feet from initiation of a 1-1/2 turn spin. " Then add in a pilots reaction time... -mick
Well, that's why when I was training, we frequently flew from KVGT (North Las Vegas) to other uncontrolled, little airports. You have to train at both, but doing the majority of my landings at a busy airport was invaluable. Mark
I have been stewing about this for a while and I must make an effort to clarify my miserable attempt to describe the downwind incident in 1945. You all had every reason to be "confused" (thanks for being so polite) because my statements were out in left field somewhere. I was going to include some excerpts from the writings of Jim Davis who wrote a very good article , " Dragons Of The Downwind Turn" but I didn't want to stretch this any further. He said all that I was trying to say but with much more eloquence accuracy and clarity. I don't understand why I was saying one thing and thinking something else Maybe 90 years (as of yesterday) has something to do with it. I don't know. But I do know that i screwed up big time and I admit it, I accept it, I own it. I trust that this appeases the experts and the rock thrower.
Thank you, Jim. Nothing special and quiet, kids were on trips or working and my wife is sick but had a good day. Shooting for ten more.
Oh, man! I hope I'm not the rock thrower! Now I feel bad throwing rocks at a 90 year old! Happy birthday!
No, don't feel bad. It was a figure of speech and I deserved whatever could be launched my way. From now on I'm going to engage the brain before starting my mouth. Thanks for the greeting.
Thank you and everyone else for the birthday greetings. I guess that it is a milestone to still be upright at this point. Better than a millstone.
Back to the Cirrus... This vid of graphic sequence overlayed with oral back and forth was helpful for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPo5yuLbvco Lots of big, fast traffic. No fuel spill even though tanks ruptured... should have had another hour's +/- left it sounded like... if they left with full tanks. Sorry if someone already posted this video, I did not see it.
That camera could not have been in a better position to show just how violent an impact this is. When you stall like that, it's just about a straight drop once you nose over? How fast in mph is that impact? Just curious. Will they make aircraft that cannot stall or are they making these now? ie auto power increase, nose being pushed down, etc. I cannot believe how that carbon fiber/fiberglass just shattered on impact. I'm thinking all three had basal skull fractures and severe spinal injuries, torn arota, etc. so death was instantaneous. What could possibly save someone if it gets to this stage?
According to recent posts on other forums, a source in the Houston area states that the fuel tanks were "bone" dry. Here is a post (previous to that info, 6/13) from a ATP Citation pilot, "She had plenty of runway in a Cirrus to land past the thresholds and not let any vortex be a factor. The crosswinds on 35 were a bigger issue for her and the Cirrus than the Jets. She just got into the deep end of the pool and couldn't swim well enough. The ATC guys didn't cause this accident. She was unprepared for the approach and panicked. The bigger issue is why did the plane stall? The missing link here is that the witnesses heard the engine sputter, and there was no fuel spill or post accident fire. This screams that the Cirrus was out of fuel, the engine quit and caused the stall. Happened so fast, and with all the other confusion going on with the runways, she didn't know that fuel was a critical issue., now we have to wonder why it ran out of fuel. The SR20 has a max gross of 3,050 lbs, and an empty weight of 2,150 lbs. That leaves 900 lbs of useful load. She was maybe 130lbs, husband was 175lbs, and brother was 200lbs. That leaves 395 lbs for fuel (if they had NO luggage), which is approx 49 gallons. Just enough to get to Houston without any reserve. This has to be a factor. If the FBO in Norman says they topped off the tanks (85 gallons), the plane would have been over grossed at departure. If she was a detailed pilot, she wouldn't have had full fuel because it would have over grossed her."
