Jeff Van West blows it in May 'IFR Magazine'

Jeff Van West wrote an article in May 'IFR Magazine' magazine that said...

"..the number of fatal, stall-related accidents in Cirrus and Columbia (Corvalis) aircraft are three times that of legacy aircraft."

"The Cirrus and Columbia are built for speed. The tradeoff is they don't have a great buffer between approach speed and stall speed. They haul more weight, so there's a greater disparity between stall speeds empty and loaded. A faster approach speed also means a wider turn radius on that turn to final, meaning a greater impetus to pull a bit harder - what seemed reasonable at the start of the turn ends badly."

We all know Cirrus has a problem with fatal stall related accidents, but the Columbia doesn't!

'Cirrus examined: Just average for safety' from The Aviation Consumer dated January 2012

"Also, if the NTSB reports are accurate, nearly two dozen of the fatal Cirrus accidents we reviewed appeared to be stall or spin related, despite Cirrus’s stall/spin-resistant wing and the availability of CAPS. This is hardly to suggest that other models don’t have stall/spin accidents, but the Cirrus line was near the top of the list for stall accidents. The Mooney series had eight, the Cessna 182 had six and Columbia and Diamond had none that we could find."

Response to Jeff's article by one of our Columbia instructors...

"Dear Jeff:

Thank you for another great edition of IFR.

Your Remarks in the May issue quoting from the Air Safety Institute 2012 TAA Special Report provide an example of how easily summary statistics can lead us astray. When reading an aviation safety report, I think it is important always to keep in mind the methodology used by the analysts before drawing conclusions. Different reports use different methodologies.

By grouping Cirrus and Columbia together, the ASI report implies that Columbia aircraft suffer from a relatively high rate of stall/spin accidents, yet in the entire history of the Columbia fleet, there has been only one documented stall/spin accident. Since the Cirrus fleet is larger and started shipping earlier, the ASI grouping is biased almost 10 to 1 by the Cirrus accident history.

A January 2012 Aviation Consumer article looks at the numbers from a different angle. It reports that Columbia aircraft have lower total and fatal accident rates than GA overall. Moreover, the percentage of Columbia accidents that are fatal (26%) is dramatically lower than for Cirrus (48%).

Instead of lumping the two fleets together and assuming they have the same problems, I think it is much more instructive to ask why their accident histories are so different, given the aircraft are so similar.

I believe the greatest factors that contribute to accident statistics are the pilot and the training. Each make and model of aircraft has its own unique quirks, training regimen, and pilot culture. These are much more significant than broad-brush factors like “buffer between approach speed and stall speed.”

Between Cirrus and Columbia, there are numerous differences in procedure, training, and performance. For example, we are taught to fly a Cirrus downwind at Vy—the edge of the region of reverse command, whereas the Columbia procedure is to fly downwind at roughly Vy+15, which allows for better altitude control in the pattern. We practice a standard complement of power on/off stall recoveries during a Cirrus transition, whereas the Columbia transition required no fewer than 15 full-break stall recoveries in all configurations and attitudes.

Perhaps most relevant to the stall/spin statistics, a number of Cirrus accidents occurred during training when pilots were practicing “The Impossible Turn”, a 45-degree banked return-to-field at Best Glide. In an SR22, that puts you only 7 knots above stalling speed, whereas in a Columbia, it’s 27 knots above stalling speed. In response to a spate of these accidents, COPA is now actively promoting the “CAPS NOW/CONSIDER CAPS” safety briefing prior to takeoff.

Any or all of these factors may have impacted the accident history, and I think it behooves us not to paint “TAA” with too broad of a brush. Instead, let’s look more closely at each fleet and keep working to improve how pilots fly—as your magazine does so well. Better procedures and training can be just as effective as additional bells and whistles, if not more so.

Best regards,

Peter King
ATP, CFIIMEI, CSIP, Columbia FTI
Bend, OR"

Another Columbia owners explanation on the aerodynamics that make the Columbia better than Cirrus to avoid stall accidents.

"This was explained before. The core reason is in the plane aerodynamics. More specifically, we have a much larger buffer between "best glide" speed (108kias) and Vso (59kias) than Cirrus (90kias vs 59kias respectively).

We also have speedbrakes and a larger rudder which gives us easy ways to slow down which means the average pilot is more likely to "keep speed up" on final. "

 

with the Skyhawk if I wasn't low 60's on short final then I was going to miss the line and float. exact speed was so important for the landing setup. in the Columbia it drops speed like a rock and plus I have speedbrakes and/or slip (as any airplane). I come around to final sometimes at 100 (this is my tight half mile pattern too) and just pulling a little more power and nosing up a tad I'm at 80 short final and will stall it on the numbers.

 

that's good to hear, I bet Cirrus figured out really quick to train pilots to maintain faster speeds in the pattern. sounds like your speeds are where they need to be. also remember the newer Cirrus planes went to a wing like the Columbia and there have been less problems.

I have a "passenger friendly" landing and then what I use most of the time can be called "carrier landing" or "runway glide distance landing". the landing I prefer is in tight within half mile all legs and at the numbers 100-110 kts I go full flaps and nose DOWN. You have to keep the speed up there around 100 through base to final. It isn't a good landing for new passengers. The beauty of it is you are always within glide distance of runway like you should be and through all phases you have extra speed and altitude to work with. As I already said this doesn't work in a floater plane like the Skyhawk, but in the Columbia it bleeds speed so well on its own and then I always have the speed brakes.

Here is video of the previous owner demonstrating the technique in my plane.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldgL5StzqPs[/ame]

Here is an old video of my landings, since then I have been working hard not to touch the power between the numbers and over the fence. Goal is to hit it perfect where you bring power back at numbers and then to idle over fence without jockeying it in-between. I also like to pattern at 1,000 AGL as I don't believe good to be 200 feet above the other planes in pattern (previous owner's home airport was controlled) and I also level the wings real quick on base to eyeball the long final.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7twg3j2x50[/ame]