Sunday, November 06, 2022

Cirrus SR20 G6, N700YZ: Fatal accident occurred November 05, 2022 at Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport (KMYF), San Diego, California

Andre Roosevelt Green
May 17, 1976 - November 5, 2022
~



This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

Investigator In Charge (IIC): Gutierrez, Eric

The National Transportation Safety Board traveled to the scene of this accident. 

Additional Participating Entities: 
Oded Moore; Federal Aviation Administration; / Flight Standards District Office;  San Diego, California 
Lycoming Engines Inc.
Cirrus Aircraft; Duluth, Minnesota 

Exyion Aviation Inc


Location: San Diego, California
Accident Number: WPR23FA027
Date and Time: November 5, 2022, 12:00 Local
Registration: N700YZ
Aircraft: CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR20
Injuries: 1 Fatal
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General aviation - Instructional

On November 5, 2022, about 1200 Pacific daylight time, a Cirrus SR20, N700YZ, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near San Diego, California. The student pilot was fatally injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 instructional flight.

Review of recorded communication from the Montgomery-Gibbs Executive (MYF) air traffic control tower revealed that N700YZ had been cleared for a base leg inbound to RWY 28R.

Shortly after, a second airplane, N480SP, was cleared for takeoff on RWY 28R, and a third airplane, N5396E, was instructed to Line-Up and Wait (LUAW) on RWY 28R. About 30 seconds later, N5396E was cleared for takeoff. About 14 seconds later, the controller instructed N700YZ, who was on about a one mile final to RWY 28R, to sidestep to the left and go-around. There was no response from the pilot, and the controller repeated the instruction to go-around, without a response. During this timeframe, a radio transmission about a trim problem, thought to be from the accident pilot was heard on frequency. The controller responded that, the aircraft that radioed about the trim problems, had a stuck mic on the tower frequency.

Recorded Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) showed the accident airplane conducting traffic pattern work to both runways 28L and 28R at MYF. The pilot flew 2 turns in the pattern to RWY 28L (left traffic), followed by 2 turns in the pattern to RWY 28R, the second of which was the accident leg, as seen in figure 1. The data showed that at 1155:58, the airplane continued to ascend in a right turn until ADS-B contact was lost, about 350 ft southeast of the accident site.

Examination of the accident site revealed that the airplane impacted flat open terrain about 730 ft northwest of the departure end of runway 28R. The airplane came to rest upright on a heading of about 10° magnetic, at an altitude of 417 ft mean sea level. The first identified point of contact (FIPC) with terrain was a ground scar/impression on a heading of 195° magnetic and about 125 ft south from the main wreckage. The ground scar/impression was about 11 ft long, 12 inches wide and 2 in deep. The debris field was about 125 ft in length and 75 ft wide. Numerous pieces of composite wing, plexiglass, and propeller were observed throughout the debris path.

The wreckage was recovered to a secure location for further examination.



Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information

Aircraft Make: CIRRUS DESIGN CORP
Registration: N700YZ
Model/Series: SR20
Aircraft Category: Airplane
Amateur Built:
Operator:
Operating Certificate(s) Held: Pilot school (141)
Operator Designator Code:

Meteorological Information and Flight Plan

Conditions at Accident Site: VMC
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: KMYF, 418 ft msl 
Observation Time: 11:53 Local
Distance from Accident Site: 0 Nautical Miles 
Temperature/Dew Point: 22°C /1°C
Lowest Cloud Condition: Clear 
Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: / ,
Lowest Ceiling: None 
Visibility: 10 miles
Altimeter Setting: 30.05 inches Hg 
Type of Flight Plan Filed:
Departure Point: San Diego, CA
Destination: San Diego, CA

Wreckage and Impact Information

Crew Injuries: 1 Fatal 
Aircraft Damage: Substantial
Passenger Injuries: 
Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: 
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 1 Fatal 
Latitude, Longitude: 32.815722,-117.13955 (est)

Those who may have information that might be relevant to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation may contact them by email witness@ntsb.gov, and any friends and family who want to contact investigators about the accident should email assistance@ntsb.gov. You can also call the NTSB Response Operations Center at 844-373-9922 or 202-314-6290.

Andre Roosevelt Green
~

Andre R. Green was born on May 17, 1976, in Creve Coeur, Missouri and lived to the age of 46. He was the father of three wonderful girls whom he loved dearly (Rochelle, Alisha, and Angelica Green). Andre will be remembered for being a genuinely kind person with immeasurable talent and passion for life. He loved his family, relentlessly chartered personal and professional goals, valued exercise, healthy living, piloting airplanes, and the freedom to pursue his dreams.

Andre leaves to cherish his memory his loving wife and soulmate, Mrs. Claudia Green, his adoring and unwaveringly supportive parents, Dr. Roosevelt and Mrs. Matlyn Green, his younger brother, Dr. David Green, and family. Close family and friends who knew Andre well will reflect that he carved his own path through life. He unabashedly lived life his way and pursued and reached goals of his choosing. His loving wife, Claudia describes him as an Angel and the best human being she ever met. He was misunderstood and did not have an easy life; however, he was such a kind spirit whose heart was so pure and clean. His parents are so very proud of the wonderful man Andre became. He was his mother’s hero with whom he shared all facets of his life through daily conversations. He manifested his mother’s unbreakable will and his father’s courage to pursue the unknown and discover life’s treasures. He was adored by his daughters, revered by his brother, and admired by family and friends.

Andre was a high school athlete (Football, Track and Field), a proud Marine Veteran (Honorably Discharged), a computer engineer and computer science teacher, an innovative and successful MBA, CEO, entrepreneur, and an airplane pilot since the age of 15. On November 5, 2022, the morning of his last airplane flight, Andre was described to be extraordinarily happy and stated that the day was going to be a great day! Andre's passing is beyond heartbreaking to his family...but he died a loved man who was happy, accomplished, fulfilled, and was doing what he absolutely loved…Flying.

Andre has always been loved deeply by his family and will be dearly missed. As a man of faith, we know his soul rests at peace in Heaven. In honor of the extraordinary life of Andre R. Green, carve your own path, live your life to the fullest, dream BIG and work tirelessly to turn your dreams in to reality. Don’t be afraid to take chances, always believe in yourself, love your family, love your God, and live your life unapologetically your way.

Andre Roosevelt Green

Andre Roosevelt Green

Andre Roosevelt Green

Andre Roosevelt Green

Andre Roosevelt Green

Andre Roosevelt Green

 



The pilot of a single-engine aircraft that crashed on takeoff at Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport was pronounced dead, the San Diego County Medical Examiner’s Office said Sunday.

The crash was reported at 11:56 a.m. Saturday. San Diego Fire-Rescue Department crews arrived at 12:06 p.m. at 8634 Gibbs Drive, near the northeast end of the airport, said SDFRD Deputy Chief of Operations Dan Eddy.

The pilot, Andre Roosevelt Green, 46, was trapped in the plane’s wreckage and was extricated by fire crews. He was taken to the hospital in critical condition and pronounced dead at 1:20 p.m. Saturday.

Green was the only person on board.

The runway was shut down and hazmat crews were called to the scene to clean up a fuel spill, Eddy said.

A total of 14 firefighting units were on the scene along with 41 firefighter personnel.

107 comments:

  1. The pilot declared an emergency and complained or runaway trim. Apparently a student on his first solo. About his 6th trip around the pattern. RIP young man

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lots of discussion on the COPA (Cirrus owner forum). In the ATC comms there is some mention about a trim issue.
    A number of the people commenting on the forum had flown this 2 year old flight school bird.
    This was not Andre's (pilots name) first solo however he was a low time guy.
    If you look at ADSB exchange you will see he got pretty slow on this circuit. These models with the new Garmin equipment have envelope (speed protection) This trim issue may be this system trying to push the nose down when the speed got slow.
    Lots of eyewitnesses and some video from the field. Witness comments about pitch and yaw oscillations before the nose went over and it went in.
    One of the COPA members on the field (bless him) jumped in a vehicle, was on scene comforting the pilot within a couple minutes before emergency personnel arrived for the extraction.
    New pilot, busy airspace, task saturation without much experience, fighting controls not realizing slow speed??? Lots can happen in these busy spaces.
    All speculation of course but seems to be a speed issue from early reports.
    Condolences to the family RIP Andre

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY7rzkVVYxA Here’s a guy who apparently witnessed the accident and comforted the pilot in his final moments

      Delete
    2. Irrespective of his speed in the circuit the video appears to show him motoring along overhead at what, 100 knots plus? If so I would suggest a low speed stall is unlikely.

      Delete
    3. I saw that short clip of the plane flying past the buildings and he is chugging along at a high rate. I agree, stall spin unlikely with that speed so wonder if his trim drove him into the ground then ?

      Delete
  3. I would think a SR20 is not the type of aircraft for a low time pilot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing wrong with using 20s at all. Like with any flight training, it can be safe or dangerous depending on both the instructor and the student.

      Delete
    2. It's not like any training aircraft. It has a smaller wing designed for speed, and the airplane is less forgiving on on airspeed mistakes. It flies faster in the pattern than your traditional pattern, so everything happens quicker. I have about 30 hours in a G2 version and I would not recommend it for student pilot training.

      Delete
    3. I have recently started training ab initios in G6 SR20s. It´s not the easiest aircraft to do primary training in, but it´s a very safe aircraft if you treat it right.

      Delete
    4. Kenneth, I have 500+ dual given in the cirrus, and all of my students perform just fine. A bit complicated on the inside, but very easy to fly.

      Delete
    5. LOL..." complicated on the inside" and "easy to fly" are contrasting comments. If you have the hours, maybe....if you're a student or low-time pilot> No, they are not easy to fly.

      Delete
    6. >No, they are not easy to fly.
      Depends what you mean by "easy to fly." I learned with pilotage and VOR triangulation and NDB holds. Punching in the procedure in the G1000 is indeed "easier to fly". You can be a terrible Cirrus pilot and it won't be apparent to most onlookers until the fire department is called.

      Watch "traffic pattern tragedy" on air safety institute, or the "communication breakdown" video. All same stuff, Cirrus doesn't like being yanked around in the pattern, which is what students do.

      Delete
    7. That plane is very unforgiving, everyone wants their first car to be a Ferrari when you should be driving a Honda

      Delete
    8. An SR20 is not a particularly hot aircraft.. big difference between a 20 and a 22

      Delete
    9. Lots of the “it’s not a trainer” comes from owners who want to think they fly a plane much hotter than they do. A cirrus isn’t special, especially the slow SR20, it just a low wing GA plane with a janky mechanical side stick which is more for looks than anything else. Wouldn’t be a plane I’d recommend for a trainer for cost and ergonomics, but as a ATP/CFI I’d have no issue soloing someone in one, even a SR22T which is still fixed gear, no prop lever, no cowl flaps and little torque when you firewall it, nothing burger

      Delete
    10. depends on the type and quality of instruction....a person can learn in most types of airplanes, depends on the training....the military folks do it...

      Delete
  4. Total of 15 hours to get my PPL, all done in a T-6. You're going to tell me that's easier than a Cirrus which does everything for you? Now I have 10K hours with zero incidents, so it wasn't a fluke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. please detail ur "Total of 15 hours to get my PPL, all done in a T-6." elaborate solo and instructional totals !

      Delete
    2. Come on, man. Bare minimum of training hours required for Private license is 40 hours...but you got yours in 15 hours? When was that? 1920?

      Delete
    3. This post doesn’t pass the smell test.

      Delete
    4. I’m interpreting this as he’s 15hrs away from his checkride maybe?

      Delete
    5. Can't be 15hrs from checkride and say "Now I have 10K hours".

      Delete
    6. Give him a break....hes probably 80 years old...lol

      Delete
    7. "Total of 15 hours to get my PPL, all done in a T-6."

      Let me guess, Boomer, you call straight-ins everytime?

      Delete
    8. Quit bagging on the T-6 guy. I don't know what he meant by the 15 hours, but I learned to fly in the USAF in a twin-engined jet, the Cessna T-37. With proper training, you could teach a healthy normal person to fly a 747 initially. At around 100 hours I was flying a Northrup T-38, a supersonic aircraft. We also flew both aircraft in formation aerobatics, two ship and four ship. It all just takes the proper training. There are too many people with poor training and little experience and no knowledge of aviation coming on this site with opinions. Good for a laugh, I guess. Oh, and to the kid knocking "Boomers". You are pathetic.

      Delete
    9. Totally agree. In short:
      - Yes there are some people who are "gifted", in just about anything. In extreme cases we call them "idiot-savants". I have known someone like that learning to play the guitar at a rate and quality that I still cannot believe. My flight instructor told me he had a student like that who never made any mistakes from the git-go -- and that scared him because you teach and learn from mistakes. So is 15 hours possible? Sure, for some (very few!) people.
      - Having said that: As a best practice I would ALWAYS recommend to EVERYONE learning to fly airplanes to take-your-time!! Flying is unforgiving, and the one time you DO make a mistake or missed something you can die!
      - Finally: My guess (!) is that learning to fly in/via the USAF is an entirely different thing than poking around 2 or 3 times a week in a trainer for an hour. If you work on this full-time, almost 24/7, with rigorous and disciplined theory and simulator time baked in: Yes, I suppose you can learn to fly very quickly.

      Delete
    10. Every person that wants to be a pilot should first build from a kit an RC airplane then learn to fly it, then go start your training to fly a full scale.

      Delete
  5. First of all, the Cirrus has lower forgiveness tolerances than say the 172 or PA28 used as trainers. One only needs look at the wing design differences to understand why. Paying attention on AOA and coordinated flight means a lot more in a Cirrus than in one of the aforementioned.

    Second, I know of nobody who got a PPL at 15 hours, if you even want to consider military training a PPL from basic to primary training aircraft (and the T-6 was advanced, not primary). Even during WWII during crash course pilot training (literally in many tragic cases), nobody got into a T-6 until dozens of hours. Straight from the National Museum Of The USAF:

    "At the beginning of the war, flight training lasted nine months, with three months of primary, three months of basic, and three months of advanced training. Each pilot had 65 flying hours of primary training and 75 hours of both basic and advanced training. During the war, each phase was reduced first to 10 weeks and then to nine weeks. Primary training was accomplished in aircraft such as the PT-17, PT-19, PT-22 and PT-23 while basic training took place in mostly in the BT-9, BT-13, BT-14 and BT-15. Advanced training for fighter pilots took place in the AT-6, and training for multi-engine aircraft occurred in the AT-9 and AT-10 aircraft. The AT-11 was used to train bombardiers and navigators."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know about the Navy as a whole but in the middle 1940's the SNJ (aka T-6 elsewhere) was used as a primary trainer. First hour to solo.

      Delete
  6. I am an advocate of primary instruction being basically stick and rudder, needle, ball, and airspeed. Why are student pilots put into high tech airplanes? In 1973, I learned in a 1946 BC-12D Taylorcraft. 65 hp engine, no flaps, brakes were not effective, 700 lbs empty, and you had to control it from the time you untied it until you tied it back down. That, to me, was good training. And I am still here to talk about it a few thousand hours, all in Alaska, later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I own a BD-12 too great airplane!

      Delete
    2. TOTALLY agree on Student Pilot training--drill the stick and rudder skill sets into them until they demonstrate a high degree of performance. Today's aviation training has gone way to far with the so-called integration of high-tech and airmanship skills. As such we see these kinds of tragic events all to often. Stop selling the 'cool' looking plastic airplanes with the game like panels to gain revenue. Get back to the basics for Heaven's sake. From an 11,000-hr. pilot with 7,500-hrs. of CFI-ing in the logbook who "kicked tin" for the NTSB for many years.

      Delete
    3. Anyone thinking about being a pilot should learn to build scale RC aircraft and fly them for a few years, and I don't mean those foam electric toys. You get the same shaky legs flying a large scale RC aircraft as you do the real thing because they are the real thing, you're just not sitting in it.

      Delete
    4. I completely agree. A big R/C pilot (say, .40 or above) will, even if not instructed, find out what an accelerated stall is, airframe limitations, how to recognize and respond to pre-stall high AOA flight, and get the bad habits pushed out unless he wants to be constantly rebuilding his mangled plane. It is very good training for piloting actual small aircraft.

      Delete
    5. Sailplanes first, followed by a simple power plane, then maybe something like a Cirrus. If the poor kid had had better mentors he'd still be here.

      Delete
    6. >If the poor kid had had better mentors he'd still be here.

      Hardly a kid in his late 40s...
      Hardly poor if flying a sr22.

      Delete
    7. I would agree that initial training should include significant stick and rudder training, including acrobatics. If the pilots of the Asiana crash plane were confidant enough to turn the damned autopilot off they might have had the skill to land the airplane manually. And that isn't the only airline crash caused by lack of aviation skills. Third world countries are rushing ab initio students into the job.

      Delete
    8. I was privileged to have served in the NTSB as an Air Safety Investigator for many years. The majority of the accidents I investigated almost always involved the pilot's lack of basic piloting skills. Didn't matter if it was a rejected landing gone awry, landing short, trying to fly in IMC with partial panel, loss of control on take-off, mishandling the airplane turning base to final (LOC), etc., etc., etc. ALL had a set-up foundation of poor, BASIC, piloting skills. Many unfortunates paid with their lives.

      I've given 7,000 + hours of dual for most SEL/MEL certificates and ratings. IT IS ESSENTIAL that the pilot applicant demonstrate basic and appropriate piloting skills. Before solo it's essential-- screw the Garmin, before certification for a specific pilot certificate or rating (such as being able to fly an ILS partial panel which IS a basic skill for an instrument rated pilot).

      I recall a rented C-206 whose vacuum pump failed. One soul on board. The ATC tape was chilling as he begged for someone to help him as he descended rapidly from 14,000-ft., colliding with the ground at Warp factor ten. The airplane and pilot were literally obliterated upon the ground collision. His TT: 2,000 hrs. +, Comm/Instrument SEL, airplane had a failed primary vacuum system (vanes shot) and inoperable standby vacuum system (poor maintenance). He left a wife and three kids.

      Cause: pilot was incapable of controlling the airplane in IMC with partial panel. Factors: failure of airplane's vacuum system due to poor maintenance, and failure of standby vacuum system due to lack of maintenance. Both conditions created an emergency situation the pilot should have been able to handle.

      Yes, factual, hard, evidence was found to prove both Factors. Pilot logbook showed no PP work for a bit more than four years. Two pre-IFR certification instructional lessons during which the pilot was given PP dual amongst other basic training. No other "typical" basic IFR emergency training was noted in the logbook.

      I'd love to look at the poor Cirrus pilot's logbook and discuss his flight training with his CFI's. Also look into the accident history/rate of the accident airplane's type. Have a sneaking suspicion there's more to the scenario than what we're aware of.

      Three kids with no Dad; a wife without her love; deeply saddened Father and Mom. Truly sad. And, pretty much preventable. Why? Basics I'd wager.

      Delete
    9. I once owned a Piper Pacer PA-20 (N7652K) which is still flying up in Alaska. It's registered to someone near Anchorage. I always wanted to go up there but never did.

      Delete
  7. I have about 50hrs in 700YZ. And lots of time in lots of others including the 152s and 172s. 0YZ was a wonderful plane. Beautifully maintained and almost too easy to fly. Absolutely nothing wrong with the 20 for flight training.

    Pure speculation, but sadly I think this one will have more to do with throttle setting than trim issues. Runaway trim in the cirrus is an annoyance, not an emergency. And 0YZ wasn’t that fast, but according to the ADS-B data, Saturday she flew the last mile straight and level over the runway at 130-140kts. You can’t do that without a lot (read full) throttle. And it looks like that started at the turn from base to final several miles out, and about when he first reported a trim problem. Again, pure speculation based only on what little data I have seen.

    Super sad event. My prayers are with the family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good catch here. I’ve examined few of the ADS-B track logs. For the speed/altitude he was going for his last few patterns at KMYF, the left pattern for 28L looks consistently better than the right patterns he made around 28R. Also I saw the speed started to get a bit out-of-control at the downwind-base turn which ended up hot on final.

      Also look at the trip from CRQ to MFY the day before. 146 mph on a downwind abeam at the numbers?

      I remember from my early PPL training that I made similar mistake of failing to precisely control my speed in a descent during a turn by not putting (enough) back pressure. Plus I always refer to the look of the buildings of an airport to judge my height so going to a new airport or just switching to the parallel runway would make my landing all over the place. Also my transition from a C172, in which the cruise speed is not far away from the pattern speed anyway, to a high-performance airplane in which cruises at 150 kts but the stall speed (which dictates Vref etc.), took me some getting-used-to. Luckily my instructor pointed this out.

      Delete
  8. In response to AnonymousMonday, November 7, 2022 at 6:50:00 PM EST

    I would agree that the basics, tail wheels, etc. are fantastic- lots of newer pilots have no idea what adverse yaw really is other than on the page. While I am likely a bit younger than you, I was fortunate enough to learn in Champs/Cubs (couldn't fit in the T-Craft's). But.. the owner of my field was in his 80's at the time, and this was in the mid 90's when I was in my teens.

    I think one problem is that training fleet is old, not a lot of Champs/Cubs/T-Crafts around in the training fleets these days. Even 150/152's are old and there are fewer as well as 172's and Cherokee's it seems as well.

    I've never flown a SR20/22 but I am sure with proper instruction there is nothing inherently wrong in training in it. Different- but not worse. Given the newer fleet, there could be an argument made that these newer planes are setting the student up for what they'll fly going forward.

    Just my opinion and I am glad I learned to fly in those marvelous planes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Another traffic pattern fatally in a Cirrus? Who would have guessed. These aircraft are so unforgiving in the critical phases of flight in the pattern. Do you absolutely have to be on your numbers or you will die. And no parachute is going to save you

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am a working CFI training in 40 year old Cessna models with old technology navigation and instruments. I also have experience in Cirrus airplanes having completed a course at Western Michigan University a few years back. Cirrus are very expensive, but they are as safe or safer than any GA airplane. I see no one reason they would not be appropriate for primary instruction, provided the instructor is qualified and a good syllabus is used. The fact is that Cirrus and advanced technology airplanes are the future and we may as well get used to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough.....expect the accident rates for training pilots to go up then. The complacency of CFIS with many hours on here downplaying the complexity of these planes is pretty alarming.

      Delete
  11. Terrible situation that seems to have been avoidable. Quality instruction is not universal. I have had good instructors and not so good instructors. But students should also be aware of their limits and comfort zone. Within that relationship it seems that there could have (should have) been more awareness about the pilot’s readiness to solo that aircraft, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Cirrus aircraft can't meet 14CFR23 23.221 without a chute. ACE-96-5 provides documentation of how "Equivalent Level of Safety" was granted by including the chute. Wouldn't have gotten certified without the chute. Could that mean that Cirrus aircraft are less forgiving as a trainer? Decide for yourself by reading about it.

    Access ACE-96-5 in FAA's system by entering in search box at:
    https://drs.faa.gov/search

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a spin recovery issue

      Delete
    2. Chute inclusion has to do with spin recovery for certification

      Delete
    3. Could other aircraft designs that do satisfy spin recovery requirements without the chute be less likely to depart from controlled flight?

      Delete
    4. EASA doesn't waive spin recovery certs. The Cirrus recovers just fine from a spin with proper control inputs.

      Delete
    5. ^ "EASA doesn't waive spin recovery certs."

      EASA waived SF50 spin recovery, relying on chute for equivalent level of safety. Documented in the cert data sheet.

      Refer to Page 7 of the cert:
      https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/24242/en

      II.Certification Basis
      g. EASA Equivalent Safety Findings:
      Spin Requirements (TC6444 CH-A-F2)

      Delete
    6. This is false. Cirrus SR series aircraft have no issues meeting 14 CFR 23.211, and they recover from spins without issue (As demonstrated for EASA certification). Cirrus certified the SR in the US with the parachute simply because it saved a lot of cost. You have to remember that at the time, Cirrus was a new company certifying an aircraft for the first time. Since they had to deploy the BRS system for certification anyway, they decided to kill two birds with one stone and spin the aircraft and then pull the chute.

      Delete
    7. Instead of reciting the imaginary story, read the actual EASA cert. Clearly you just don't grasp what "Equivalent Level Of Safety" is.

      Delete
  13. All this back and forth, vis a vi Cirrus is a good/bad trainer, is worthless banter. At the end of the day, a low time pilot crashed an airplane, during what should have been a routine touch and go training exercise. It should not have happened, there is a failure somewhere, wait for the full report.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Cirrus trainer with Hershey bar wing would kill fewer pilots. Fact.

      Delete
    2. On my 2nd or 3rd solo i had a runaway trim motor on a piper warrior, I didn't know what was happening, I flew over Taco Bell at about two hundred feet, at that same airport, MYF. I didn't recognize what was happening, I just knew it took a lot of strength to over come the out of trim condition and it was terrifying, the plane wanted to just nose dive into the earth. I flew in a cirrus, warrior, 172s, and Grumman's, its no worse than any of them, and in some case the descent was more stable.

      Delete
  14. As stated years and years ago, the Piper Cub is the safest airplane available. It can just barely kill you!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Took a look at the ADSB data and the video, and he motored over the field at approximately 130 kts. He had completed a normal landing and taxi-back, and then took off for another (apparently) circuit of the field and landing. All appeared normal until he turned final for the second landing, whereupon his speed increased dramatically instead of slowly decreasing for the descent to the runway. He descended somewhat below pattern altitude as he flew over the field at high speed with some pitch oscillations, then descended directly into the ground at the west end of the field at high speed. Runaway pitch trim? Stuck throttle? Perhaps a runaway pitch trim and his response was to advance the throttle and try a go-around. As others have mentioned, a runway pitch trim might be scary, but shouldn't cause a crash for an experienced pilot, which this person was not. The investigation will reveal important details about the trim and throttle positions, but this tragedy should not have happened, and perhaps we as pilots in whatever airplanes we fly need to review the procedures for dealing with situations like this. And perhaps this pilot was simply overwhelmed when confronted by an issue he was never trained to deal with or simply panicked and didn't really know what to do. So sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Perhaps a runaway pitch trim and his response was to advance the throttle and try a go-around."

      I think you are correct. From what I understand, he had planned a full stop, taxi back. ATC, due to traffic on runway, advised him-3 times in the last minute of flight to go around with the last instruction to go around to the right of the runway. His last response was "I can't, I gotta land." He followed standard go around procedure by advancing the throttle without knowing that doing so would exacerbate the trim problem.

      Delete
    2. One can always overpower against full trim, but there is not even a great deal of "feedback" to the trim position given the electric trim system in the SR22 (I fly a G1 version, have ~500hrs in it). It would require a really significant and steady pull on the side yoke if max runaway, and you wouldn't know how/if it is changing unless you started to relieve pressure or got other annunciators (servo limit, etc). Any "letting go" would rapidly pitch down and require another pull, likely source of the oscillations seen.

      Delete
  16. A question for you Cirrus drivers; is there any way that a pilot (especially a new one) could inadvertently select nose-down trim without knowing it? I've never flown a Cirrus, but perhaps by the way the pilot is gripping the side controller? I know this may seem silly, but maybe if your left hand is more on top of the stick you might be pressing forward on the trim button. I know at times I've pressed the PTT switch inadvertently in my plane during a rough maneuver, but was wondering if during the pitch oscillations he was pressing the trim button forward or perhaps was reaching across with his right hand to 'unstick' the pitch trim button? Not trying to be weird here, just thinking out loud, and perhaps some insight from you Cirrus pilots might help regarding manipulation of the trim button.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ABSOLUTELY!
      Having flown lots of Cirrus, including 700YZ, that is exactly what I think happened. Totally my opinion here.

      Either way, the trim on a cirrus doesn’t directly alter a flight surface - only the neutral position of the centering spring. It is not hard, at all, to overcome. It would, however, get progressively harder if you kept the throttle in and let the airspeed build. And I imagine that would be scary to a low time pilot.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your and the previous post about the trim issue which I couldn't understand.

      One small thing: in a conventional design aircraft an increase in thrust and thus briefly speed will make it climb at the previous speed. The pitch trim is technically/actually an AoA trim for the wing which at higher speeds generates more lift and climbs (at the same AoA, lift is a function of AoA, coefficient of lift (basically the individual wing design) and area of lift). That's why (during smooth maneuvers) pitch/altitude is actually controlled with thrust and speed with pitch/trim. Autothrust and FLCH in an autopilot are doing exactly that.

      Of course when already descending, it will accelerate while decreasing the descent angle, which is too slow close to the ground and requires pitch up
      (as well).

      Delete
    3. You could overcome complete, trim up or trim down with the side, stick in runaway trim on a Cirrus. Just saying. Ask me how I know.

      Delete
  17. Couldn't you just reduce power and pull the Trim breaker? Presumably the pilot had been properly briefed and wasproficienwt in the airplane in order to be solo. Sad story, RIP.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The problem wasn't the aircraft but the pilot.

    ReplyDelete
  19. First thing you do is locate the trim CB and the autopilot CB. By FAR they have to be CB switches. If you have runaway anything pull the CB. I recently ferried a C22T from the east coast to the west coast. First Cirus I flew. After flying over 122 make /model/types of airplanes i thought the Cirrus was the worst flying airplane i had ever flown. They will continue to crash untill they get rid of the side stick PIO..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mechanically linked side stick in the Cirrus is pretending to be the equivalent of the fly by wire control in Airbus. Gonna be the occasional pilot induced crash, as the side arrangement is not ergonomically natural in the same way as a yoke placed at the end of both arms or center stick.

      Delete
    2. In the low phase of flight he was in hunting down a CB is dumb. And if you think a PIO is a result of the plane, you need more flight experience, not a fan of the cirrus, but if you’re PIOing one it’s because you lack basic fundamentals, the same for if you PIO a J3 or a jet

      Delete
    3. Tim also wrote that Cirrus SR20 has: "janky mechanical side stick which is more for looks than anything else".

      Delete
  20. Rule 1: FLY THE AIRPLANE UNTIL IT IS DONE FLYING. No student should be sent out solo until they understand this is Rule & Priority 1 with potentially fatal consequences for non-compliance.

    Our local airport has had two high profile accidents - one fatal, one not - in the last couple years where pilots simply stopped flying the airplane and the airplane took them to a very bad place. One was a T-210 shooting touch and goes in abysmal wind conditions and the pilot simply forgot to switch fuel tanks and ran one dry immediately after takeoff. All he had to do was lower the nose and aim for the interstate. But no. He was yelling over the radio and stalled the airplane, which plunged into trees and caught on fire, killing him. The other was a recently soloed student who pulled the mixture control to idle cut off on downwind rather than applying carburetor heat. This was on midfield downwind to a 6000' paved runway in near perfect day VFR conditions. He ended up in the trees after asking the tower for "help" - the tower is not the help desk. Thank goodness, he sustained only minor injuries and I understand he went on to resume training for his PPL - hopefully with a better CFI.

    Only time and and the NTSB investigation will reveal the cause of this accident. But yes, I've flown various Cirrus types and thought they were fine airplanes, although I agree with the comments above that letting new pilots train in them and solo them requires specialized instruction. A runway trim event in a Cirrus can be controlled by a properly trained pilot. So was this pilot appropriately trained? Was runaway trim simulated at a safe altitude? Was the student required to find and pull the appropriate CB's (there are two) blindfolded? I used to make my students operate the fuel valve, mixture, mags, and master switch of their training platform blindfolded in a dark hangar and then point to these controls unexpectedly during high workload phases of training flights.


    ReplyDelete
  21. Runaway (not runway) trim does require lots of strength and so captures all of your attention. Would be even worse with sidestick instead of two handed yoke. This unlucky soul could also have bumped the autopilot on while out of trim or out of control. I have not sampled the sidestick myself even though I am over 2000 hours. As far as fatal Cirrus accidents in the pattern, remember not all were low time students such as the woman who flew from Oklahoma to Houston and crashed onto a parked car after multiple tries to land in busy pattern. She had over 300 hours and over 300 in type (sr20) and she did have a pilots license and had two unlucky passengers. I do think there is something about the Cirrus and the idea of teaching students in the Cirrus, especially those who buy a high performance version like the SR22 and then learn to tame the beast and contribute to the Cirrus reputation and record. Someone that really knows about the stall recovery without using the chute needs to comment on it. I was under the impression that the only recovery from a stall in the Cirrus was the chute and before anyone goes out to try it, it was tried years ago by guys who died trying it and that I know really happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >I was under the impression that the only recovery from a stall in the Cirrus was the chute

      No offense, but either you don't have 2000 hours or you need to proofread your incorrect and somewhat rambling post.

      Delete
    2. I did proofread it and it is all true but still made one mistake. I meant spin recovery requires the chute. Stall recovery is very similar for most light planes until you get into high performance power on stalls or aerobatic flight.

      Delete
  22. As a SR22 owner with nearly 2000 hours, I think the SR20 is probably a little slick for a newbie. I think my favorite trainer was a 172 since they are stable, forgiving and go fairly slow at touchdown. I also trained in a skipper but the 172 is my favorite

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, I have around 520 hours in my SR22, beautiful plane but not a trainer. I am happy I did not train in that slick beast. I am confused why people don't want to admit it is not a trainer. I think it is because they don't want to sit in a crappy 172 that doesn't impress your friends.

      Delete
    2. Most of the posts supporting the Cirrus to be a trainer, are Cirrus employees trying to sell airplanes!

      Delete
    3. Cirrus is a trainer, especially the slower SR20, it has a side stick and a smaller tail, that’s about it

      Delete
  23. Sounds like a problem I encountered in my2006 SR-20. Flying from California to KTTD my trim decided to go into the full down position. I was 15 min out and luckily I had another pilot in R seat to help take control of aircraft to give me a break. Don’t know if I could have made it by myself. After landing cycled the breaker that had NOT popped out and restarted the airplane, the trim reset and worked fine.😬

    ReplyDelete
  24. There are a lot of comments about "Low time pilot", but the article mentions that Andre has been a pilot since the age of 15. Of course, it's possible to fly very little in the course of 31 years, but what are we basing his experience on?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Disregard the previous. 1st paragraph mentions student pilot.

      Delete
    2. He got his student cert just October of this year

      Delete
  25. I'm confused, the article says Andre was a pilot since he was 15 years old, but this 46 year old only has a student certificate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Based on the MLM looking “fake it till you make it” photos of him, I’d say it’s fair to guess he was a bit of a BSer

      Delete
  26. May have had medical or psychological disorders = Marine Veteran (Honorably Discharged). 😞

    ReplyDelete
  27. Congratulations, after the recent lapse in updating this website, many of the old loonies and a bunch of new and very experienced loony commenters have returned .I can’t say you were missed during the outage.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The SR20 is indeed slick. A good trainer for ATP candidates as it does mimic to a degree a large transport airplane but for any newbie it is outright too much airplane if just for stick and rudder.
    As for the C172... I am obtaining a 135 with one so not at all a bad airplane. It can literally do everything... training, personal transport, charter... even skydiving. Although its bigger sibling i.e the 182 is better at the later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As someone who flys part 25 jets and as someone who has flown a cirrus, no, no it does not replicate a jet, not even remotely, it flys like most all the other trainer GA planes minus the side stick and a smaller tail

      Delete
  29. If someone is white-knuckling the yoke is it possible the electric trim switch was held active and the trim stopped at the nose down extreme?

    Everyone knows if you trim to an extreme it is nearly impossible to counteract it continuously. Flying faster does not help either.

    I personally did not choose a Cirrus a primary trainer but in this case I do not think "Cirrus" is the issue. Until one learns to fly I suggest the electric trim be de-activated (on anything).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trim tab aircraft can impose increased force with increased airspeed due to air impinging on a deflected tab, but the centering spring bias of the Cirrus trim implementation doesn't behave that way.

      Delete
  30. I’m confused, his obit say “ and an airplane pilot since the age of 15” so he’s been a pilot for 31 years…However the FAA airman’s database says he is a STUDENT PILOT who got his student pilot certificate Oct of THIS year (2022)?? Seems like little bit if a BS artist, but RIP none the less

    ReplyDelete
  31. You can say you’re a pilot when you are a student pilot, I think he may have taken lessons at age 15, but never got his PPL, and he picked it up later in life when he had the time and money to finish it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "airplane pilot since the age of 15" ???? Someone better revise his eulogy. In my experience those who take pictures of themselves as this gentleman has done usually are the same ones who embellish their life, they concentrate on style over substance. Check out the Cirrus crash at Santa Maria, CA, same exact thing. Do you think Audie Murphy had WWII HERO bumper stickers on his car ???

    ReplyDelete
  33. Interesting point. I found a YouTube interview where the mishap student pilot himself claimed he was a "commercial instrument rated pilot." Later in his interview he also states that he is a licensed pilot. Then claims he obtained a "vocational thing" (VA paid flying?) but he then states he wasn't an aviator in the Marine Corps but later he became a commissioned officer, specifically an intel officer. But now that he is being licensed for flying Learjets and that he then wants to start a charter business. In the interview the interviewer tells him that he is obviously not a commercial pilot and Green does not correct him. The same video incorrectly labeled him as a "Marine Pilot" but he did serve in the USMC but not as a pilot.
    Overall there was a lot of hubris by Green which can happen to any pilot no matter whether they are student pilots or test pilots.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDXb7PE_iio

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Listen around the 33 minute mark. The interviewers are letting him run with it: "Vision Jet lands itself" ... "they're transmitting radars". He mentions crypto (probably could have become Sam Bankman-Freids pilot someday).

      Delete
    2. Kinda surprised he crash being a private, commercial and instrument rated pilot whose other airplane was a Vision Jet and working on a LearJet type rating.

      Delete
    3. Wow. That youtube video was enlightening into this pilot's lack of understanding of aviation and capability. Tragic accident.

      Delete
    4. It's pretty clear that the host bros on that YouTube interview knew nothing about aviation, so when they said "you obviously aren't a commercial pilot" they meant "career pilot", rather than challenging his earlier assertion about getting his commercial rating. The part where he said an aircraft's wings can bend completely upwards and touch each other without damage was quite interesting. Not cool to falsely boast about so much stuff, but I almost feel like he was messing with those guys because he knew they were clueless.

      Delete
    5. He said he had a team making his online gold biz happen, but when he availed himself of some of the paycheck protection cash, he listed his LLC as an operation having only one employee.

      https://www.isitascam.com/az/andre-green/

      Delete
    6. Man that youtube video of him is hard to watch.

      He calls IFR as "Instrument Flight Revelation" and says Class D typically goes to 4000 feet.

      Kind of pathetic, any real pilot (or even most flight simmers I know) would be cringing so hard.

      Delete
  34. One thing is sure: Aviation surely has a way to separate imbeciles and poseurs from the real pilots. He wasn't one.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I Admit it, Cirrus planes fly just fine BUT you better stay in way in front of them or they will surely bite you, hard and fast.

    ReplyDelete