A (Cautionary) Tale Of Two Landing Accidents

[opticsguy]

I think I posted this years ago. Pulled power at 500 ft and did a 270 with 45 deg. bank at 78 kt. I probably had 30-40 feet left when I got over the runway. With the engine off you could at least have made it over the fence and onto the grass.

 

I did one of these on a BFR a few years back. The 10,000 hour CFI had never seen one done.

 

Note that this airport KHQZ has nothing but houses straight ahead, and KADS is even worse.

[FlyingMonkey]

One aspect of the CT that enables the turn back procedure from a lower altitude is the BRS. If you try it and it doesn't work out, you can deploy the parachute before it becomes a "do or die" (literally) maneuver. I still would not try it below 800' AGL (I think that's what the CT manual recommends) if I had any kind of straight ahead options, but if it is really bad ahead you can at least give it a try at lower altitude. And as you said, just making the grass, a taxiway, or something else without obstructions might be a preferable outcome.

[FastEddieB]

In real life that turn back can only start after about a three second "deer in the headlights" recognition phase.

 

Really.

 

In that three seconds, airspeed bleeds off rapidly from Vx or Vy. Crank the plane over at that moment and a stall/spin will often result.

 

That turn back to the runway has proven over the years to be deadly. At least one Cirrus has been in a fatal attempting it in training. There may be times when you get enough altitude to accomplish it*, but it should NOT be your first reaction. At 500' only a tiny, tiny fraction of pilots can pull it off when the chips are down. Turning a maximum of 45º one way or another to find the clearest spot to put her down is the best first reaction.

 

 

*I'm thinking on a long runway with a good headwind, you might be at 1,000' AGL with runway still beneath you. In that case, options to return may present themselves, right up to turning downwind and flying a semi-normal power off pattern.

[FlyingMonkey]

Good point on the three second "blink, blink" delay Eddie.

[Ed Cesnalis]

I wait till I'm 600' AGL before I clean up my take-off flaps. Since that is my first opportunity to turn back, at that point I am mentally initiating my turn. I stay in that mode for the next 30 seconds. The idea is to avoid the 3 second deer in the headlights delay.

[sandpiper]

I can easily turn the CT back at 400' AGL in practice. But, I know it's going to happen so no "deer in headlights". When I practice this, my biggest problem is getting it back on the runway with room to stop. Usually takes some 40 flaps and a slip.

 

So, my take off brief to myself is no turn back before 600' AGL. Before that, I would land in the general direction I am going.

 

Of course, no two airports are alike as far as obstacles go. Each one is unique and may require different solutions.

 

As far as depending on your chute if a turn back fails, that's not something I would count on if I turn back at 600 AGL. Might be better than nothing, but how is that going to work for you by the time you figure out you won't make it?

[Roger Lee]

I'm with Ed and John,

 

400' will work if you dont hesitate and do it quickly. There won't be any screw ups from 400' either, but I personally don't change anything until 600' and that would make a turn back very doable.

[FlyingMonkey]

As far as depending on your chute if a turn back fails, that's not something I would count on if I turn back at 600 AGL. Might be better than nothing, but how is that going to work for you by the time you figure out you won't make it?

 

You would definitely have to have some self-awareness on what was happening. You'd have to already be thinking about the chute, and pull it quickly when it became obvious you weren't going to get all the way back around. By the time you are stall/spinning at 100ft AGL it would be too late.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Those rockets get out there pretty fast, I'm not sure 100' is too late. Who has the definitive answer?

[sandpiper]

I need a volunteer.

[Ed Cesnalis]

I'll volunteer John. I have to come up and visit my family so I'll stop by Independence and pull your chute for you

[sandpiper]

OOPS! :mellow:

[Roger Lee]

There have been 100' saves. Aircraft speed makes a difference.

[FlyingMonkey]

There have been 100' saves. Aircraft speed makes a difference.

 

By this do you mean that higher speed assists in getting the chute open faster?

[Roger Lee]

Yes,

90 mph is better than 30 mph. The chute Ned's time to inflate then the cords have to stretch in time to support the aircraft then start its controlled plumet to earth.

[FlyingMonkey]

Makes sense, thanks Roger.

[johngpilot]

The parachute uses a speed sensing slider that allows faster opening at slower speeds and vice versa. The original BRS patents were for this device. All things being equal ( they never are however) Slower speeds would be "better" because they subject the plane, parachute material and passengers to less forces. The parachutes were tested at higher speeds than placarded. Also the US CT parachutes use a "bag deploy" method so the parachute is pulled fully out before the deployment sequence. The Euro planes use a sleeve deploy mechanism.

 

Usually you need at least 3X the shroud lines distance to fully deploy. I am aware of a bout a 90 foot deployment from Africa several years ago when I worked at BRS. They guy walked 5 miles after to get help so that was a success.

 

I would also caution you that the BRS is not a panacea. You could safely deploy and then get dragged in high winds and have injuries from that. If you can fly the plane fly it if not USE the Chute early rather than later and slower speed rather than faster. .

 

Also it depends on your instantaneous conditions straight and level vs spinning vs spiral vs missing wing from a midair...

 

for example If you are descending at 4000 FPM (66 fps.. and pull the chute takes say 10 seconds for max inflation, that is about 600 ft of altitude loss that condition would be extreme. I plan to use the BRS if needed at any time... Not going to not use it because I think I am too low. At the point it is deployed I am worried about dying.

 

To pick the best conditions for BRS deployment ... straight and level flight in a zero wind condition at above 400 feet... you might not be able to pick that and your mileage will vary.

[Tip]

Thanks John for your input. Will the gear legs hold up on impact?

[Roger Lee]

They do want the 400' and to a point the higher the better, but they have had 100' saves as as you say when you life is on the line try it all and do it without hesitation.

[Adam]

The only thing missing from that video of the twin landing was the pilot side wingtip impacting the ground and the plane cartwheeling in a firey explosion. Even if I had the skill to pull that landing off (which I don't) I value my life far too much to attempt it.

 

On the topic of CT's, having flown both the SW and the LS, I did tend to use less flaps and slightly faster approaches in the SW than I did the LS. For me it was easier to set a CTSW down smoothly with a little more speed. I found the LS landing gear to be vastly improved over the SW and further found that when I set the LS down (less than perfectly) the gear absorded and the plane "stuck" a lot better than the SW which would bounce a lot eaiser. When my CTLSi gets in I'd like to spend more time with a competent CFI on my landing skills. While I have set a CT down at full flaps with a CFI, I seldom in practice ever use more than 15 degree flaps landing in my flying in a CT. That is a huge departure from my flight time in 172's, 182's and even some other LSA's where I almost always (depending on wind conditions) used full flaps. IMHO our CT's (both variants) are a little finicky to land and its landings that are the biggest challenge in flying Flight Design.

[sandpiper]

Adam - even if you don't use more than flaps 15 very often, you should maintain proficiency. They do come in handy. Yesterday, for example, I went in to a place with tall trees on approach. Relatively short runway. Had a choice of coming in low over the trees and dumping it, slipping all the way down, or a stabilized 30 flap landing. I like a stabilized approach so did the flaps 30. No muss, no fuss.

[FastEddieB]

The pilot in my second (too slow?) example just posted to COPA his take on his accident. Cross-posted with permission.

 

 

This week is the 3rd Anniversary of my accident at Mountain Air.  As Pilot's do,  I was reflecting on that event.  Up to this point I have not posted about the event.  As it played out the FAA and Insurance Company were great.  I did not even get a letter from the FAA to get a training flight.  The FAA inspectors that came that day were professional and very comforting.  They actually lifted my spirits that day.

 

This accident was pilot error.  Mine.  The airplane was perfect.

 

I had flown more in the previous 30 days that I had done in the last year.  I had just come back from M8 at Dayton.

 

The night before,  The plane came out of Annual and I had done a return to service flight with my partner and son.

 

Memorial weekend a month before I had attended the Mountain Air Pilots Association meeting at Mountain Air and had a safety Briefing by our Safety Officer on landing at Mountain Air. My landing that weekend was great.  Landing at Mountain Air is as close to being a Naval Aviator landing on an Aircraft Career.  The only different is the Mountain is not moving.

 

What went wrong.  The month prior on the COPA forums there was significant discussion on landing and air speed control.  I read all these post and made mental notes to watch my approach speeds on my future flights.

 

The flight up to landing was perfect.  Instead of entering base to final as I normally did, I decided to adjust my traffic pattern and enter Downwind to give myself more time to nail the approach.

 

On this approach,  I had a slight tailwind.  Not enough to change the active runway, but I had not landed there with this condition.

 

My approach was too shallow,  it was not the normal 3 degree decent.  I was flat.

 

As I came over the threshold,  the aircraft was pushed down and I did not adjust.  I felt I was going to still be ok and land right on the numbers.

 

That did not happen as the pictures showed*. We were very lucky and if not for the engineering of Cirrus,  we would not be alive.  The aircraft was totaled, but we all walk away with no injuries. The aircraft was not equipped with airbag seatbelt.

 

The landing was flat and the airspeed was such that the aircraft would not adjust for downdrafts, while I did not correct for that condition as I thought we were ok and would make the numbers.

 

What do I want to tell my fellow members:

 

1.  Train, Train, Train and don't get in to mental games with COPA posts.  Do what you and your instructors practiced. I had brought my CSIP instructor to Mountain Air previously to make sure I was doing this right.  On this day,  I wanted to make a perfect landing.  In the end a good landing would have been a better outcome.

 

2.  Prepare your family for the worst.  If we had not had the outcome we had that weekend,  My oldest son would have been left to settle the estate.  I did not have my wills updated for that contingency. We could have easily died in a traffic accident also, but you need to make sure that your affairs are positioned for a bad day.  I had many opportunities to update my wills.  It just was never a priority.

 

3.  Bad flights effect your future flying.  I no longer have a Cirrus aircraft that is my partnership.  I don't fly as much as I did.  My wife has not flown with me since.  My son has, but their trust is not there in my capabilities.

 

4.  I still have the passion for aviation, but I question my abilities to be the pilot I thought I was.  If I would change something, I would probably have flown more and taken my family members back up earlier.  What did they say in Top Gun.  Get him back up?

 

5.  Find the hardest CSIP you can and let him test you on every training flight.  I had a hard instructor and we pushed the IFR environment.  I had never exhibited landing issues.  If I had could replay the timeline. I would have gotten Alex to test me to the limit.

 

 

 

Ok,  COPA,  respond to this thread as you see fit.  You will not hurt my feelings.  If one pilot has a better outcome from my experience,  that would be a positive outcome.

 

 

So, his take was that the proximate cause may have been a flatter approach than he was used to, not speed per sé. But I still hold a few extra knots on this particular approach may have bought him a little extra controllability when the gust hit. And, of course, if thing are not "just so", go around and try again.

 

*

[Ed Cesnalis]

My first reaction is amazement, after reading the pilots account I didn't hear him say why he crashed.

 

He did say "The landing was flat and the airspeed was such that the aircraft would not adjust for downdrafts" huh????

 

At what airspeed does a Cirrus adjust for downdrafts? Sounds like the aircraft failed to land itself. I get after a member here when he expresses concerns that make no aeronautical sense because a false understanding of how your plane flies and lands can lead to expecting things that are never going to happen like this Cirrus auto-adjusting to rapid sinking.

 

Many here claim that slow approach speeds lead to rapid sink and bent gear which is generally the same issue here. There was not enough energy to make the runway with a margin over stall and arrest sink so the pilot let it crash with his fingers crossed.

• Flat approaches do not cause crashes
  
• Power is required if you are not going to make the runway
  
• Power is required to arrest rapid sink.
  

The fly it on argument looses here even if this was a slow approach. Flying it on means setting up and letting it happen and when this is your technique and rapid sink develops you either advance the throttle or suffer the consequences.

 

Getting the stick full aft in order to land at minimum speed for the flap setting is a far more active technique that includes arresting sink with the stick. Advancing the throttle in this mindset is more intuitive because you are decreasing sink as you approach contact already, its already in your head.

[Tom Baker]

CT, don't you fly the airplane on?

[FlyingMonkey]

I'm also puzzled by the downdraft comment. If a Cirrus going to full power can't break out of a downdraft, that must be a *hell* of a piece of wind. It sounds like he didn't have adequate throttle control, or didn't initiate a go around when the landing came into doubt.