This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss
Back to Squawk list
  • 78

Pilot, daughter describe their surreal descent into ocean in Cirrus plane

Submitted
At 12:15 p.m. Saturday, after taking off from a small airport in Miami, McGlaughlin reported to air traffic control over the Bahamas that the dead engine was forcing him to deploy the parachute system on the Cirrus a few miles from Andros Island. He had been watching a dipping oil pressure gauge for a while until the engine seized and the propeller stopped. (www.duluthnewstribune.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


cirrus1ag
Scott Hallock 1
Hey Randy Brown and Front Range Airport: You two have the worst kind of bias, that not supported by fact. You toss your vitrial
TomGoodrick
Landing on water is the best place to go with a parachute when your engine quits. Landing on hard ground or in trees is much more dangerous.
cirrus1ag
Scott Hallock 1
Hey Randy Brown and Front Range Airport: You two are the worst of "our kind". Because it isn't what you have you hate it and then make staements that without basis. Your vitriol tends to make me think you were bullied in school or have "other" issues that make you a badass when you are at your keyboard. Like many in the COPA community I am a long time pilot. I have owned and flown many other aircraft. I am also a certificated parachute rigger
cirrus1ag
Scott Hallock 1
and skydiver. When I searched for an airplane and eventually bought my Cirrus I was initially "put off" by the parachute as it took away from the useful load and I had been trained as all of us have to make off airport landings if required. The more I pondered that issue the more I realized that there are many places where "off airport" means "no place to land" and issues not just for me and my pacs but people on the ground. It makes sense, to me. It may not to you but that doesn't make it wrong. It will recover from a spin in the requisite amount of time and had you done your research you'd know that. I guess it's easier to spew sewage.Sorry to any put off by the additional post(s) my computer isn't playing nice. Maybe I'll just pull the chute!
jdmille2
jdmille2 0
I'd rather hit the water in a controlled stall than at 1700 fpm straight down. I'm sure there are some instances where the 'chute results in a safer descent and crash landing, but this doesn't strike me as one of the cases.
stuartsm
stuartsm 1
Energy increases at a square of the velocity. 16 times more energy to dissipate at 60kts than 17kts.
HunterTS4
Toby Sharp 0
would you still do that in a fixed tricycle gear plane like the Cirrus? you are probably immediately going on your nose if not on your back, which is now upside down in water with a doors that open vertically.......looks like he did a great job doing exactly what he did
HunterTS4
Toby Sharp 0
jdmille2.....ps....sweet mooney!!!!
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 0
Don't forget that in a ditching -- especially fixed gear -- the windshield will probably blow out on impact as well, so you'll have large quantities of water rushing into the plane. I'd rather settle vertically in a plane that remains largely intact and able to float for a few moments while I get my senses back and get out right-side up.
rmust3
Of all the ditching reports I'm aware of I have never heard of a windshield blowing out. Another example of pure speculation.
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 0
I'm too lazy to search the NTSB accident database and cite specific incidents, but here are some statements corroborating the probability of the windshield getting destroyed. The worst possible outcome mentioned is stoving, where the windshield gets pushed into the cockpit. You'd then have to fight your way out from under that while the aircraft begins to sink.

http://www.dunkyou.com/aopa-2001dec.html

http://www.equipped.org/blog/?p=101

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsider_HawaiiDitching_205583-1.html
jkudlick
Absolutely amazing, and a testament to the folks who engineered, manufactured, and installed the parachute systems into the aircraft.
davysims
David Sims 0
As the article says, 90% of single engine ditchings are survivable, without a parachute. I only see two uses for a parachute on an aircraft, catastophic structural failure (wing falls off), or disoriented in IMC (better to float down to the ground than hit it). A parachute is not necessary for an engine failure.
stuartsm
stuartsm 1
David, I agree with most of this. Add pilot incapacitation to your list. My wife is trained to find the nearest airport using the Garmins, descending to 2,000 AGL, and then pull. We have a 99% or better possibility of surviving this than a non pilot trying her first landing.
My emergency procedure on an engine out situation is to glide to an airport. If I don't' have the runway easily made by 2,000 I'm pulling the chute.
FedExCargoPilot
i agree, this parachute thing still made the plane hit the water hard and flat...best glide could have gotten them to the reef at least.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
And FedExCargoPilot knows that fact how? Besides, Elaine reports that flying low over Andros Island in the rescue helicopter, the reef mentioned, was really unappealing scrub and rocks.
jkudlick
He was over water at the time. With fixed gear over water, I'd rather use the parachute than risk flipping.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
David posits that a parachute is not necessary for an engine failure. Except the pilot at 6000 feet over Elkin, NC, who couldn't see out his windscreen when piston #2 broke through the cylinder but pulled the red CAPS handle and landed in a field without injury or much further damage to his plane. And a big advantage of using the Cirrus parachute over water rather than ditching is having extra time to prepare for egress. The two people aboard this Cirrus, Dick and Elaine, got ready. Oh, and Dick also reports that his performance began degrading as he glided closer to but not close enough to land. He now doubts his abilities under that stress would be good enough.
chalet
chalet 0
Still can´t understand why people fly over large expanses of water continuosly on single engine aircraft as if it was the goal of their lives. In this case the Good Samaritan doctor flying to Haiti every month on relief missions speak wonders about his qualities as a human being but 6 hours over and 6 hours back from Miam over shark infested waters, just too risky.
bmathews1
Well of course, if you lose an engine on a twin, the other engine will get you all the way to the crash.
StanleyJohnson
Only in an Apache
FedExCargoPilot
there are lots of islands, could have probably glided to reef, or at least swim to the beach..only a few miles
ThatOneDude
John Johnson 0
chalet has a point about the shark infested waters. Last time I was in that region of the world, I was scuba diving a few times a day. We NEVER saw fewer than 30 sharks of four or five different varieties. Your odds of survival in those waters after downing your aircraft and having to swim that far are nearly zero. Especially if you get so much as a minor scratch that draws blood. As for the reefs, there are only a few reefs that break the surface around the islands over there, and if you have ever slipped on a coral structure, whether dead or alive, you know just how sharp and dangerous they can be. Now, from an environmentalist standpoint, I'm extremely glad he decided to let the aircraft down in the water as opposed to on a reef. Coral reefs are dying at a rapid rate, much faster than we can grow and rebuild them by hand and by nature. So if he had downed the aircraft on the reef, damage would have been tremendous between the actual trauma of the impact and the contamination caused by any oil or avgas that could have leaked out or spilled out upon impact or while the aircraft sat there waiting to be picked up and hauled to the scrap yard.
Mick
Mick 0
32nd deployment since 1999. . . say no more about Cirrus...
pfp217
pfp217 0
But how many total flights since 1999? I think Jason below is right...it's the Bonanza of our time, a perfectly capable aircraft with sometimes less than perfectly capable pilots.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
The Cirrus fleet now exceeds 5,000 aircraft that has flown more than 5,000,000 hours.
aggieflyer
aggieflyer 0
Actually, say no more about the 80 hour wonders that fly Cirrus. There is a report somewhere saying that all but about 3 or 4 of these deployments have been either a) accidental or b) unnecessary and avoidable.
stuartsm
stuartsm 1
Does "avoidable" include not every taking off? If so, 100% were "avoidable". Actually we have had a frustratingly large number of pilots die when the passed on the opportunity to use the chute. I have never head of an accidental pull and I follow all of these very carefully. If you have at the report, please post a link.
grinch59
Gene Nowak 0
Jason - Can you find the report? Otherwise I'm with Mick. Do we have a problem with the aircraft when the parachute is deployed and you lose an aircraft more than twice a year?
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
Wonder where that report is and who wrote it. As safety liaison for the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association, I collect information about all the Cirrus fatal accidents and survivable parachute deployments. None has been accidental. Unnecessary and avoidable are judgement calls, which are very unreliable if the judge was not in the situation faced by the pilot who acted to pull the red handle. Perpetuating this misinformation does a disservice to the thousands of Cirrus pilots who may be faced with the decision -- do I pull? -- in a bad situation that might save their lives. Regrettably, 105 people have died in 60% of the Cirrus fatal accidents where the decision chain passed through a scenario in which a Cirrus pilot pulled the red handle and all aboard survived. Those deaths were unnecessary and avoidable in my humble opinion.
bmathews1
could you re-phrase that last, Rick?
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
Happy to rephrase.

When looking at the accident decision-chains in Cirrus fatal accidents, I was struck by how many passed through a point where another Cirrus pilot had pulled the red handle and deployed the Cirrus parachute system and everyone survived. For instance, you mentioned the couple who landed in a walnut grove. Their incident was above 10,000 feet as the plane was about to enter a high stratus deck in an inverted dive that the aerobatic instructor could not get the plane to respond -- he pulled. At least three other high-altitude upsets involved planes that lost control and descended through 9,000, 7,000, 5,000 feet without the pilot activating the parachute. I consider those fatal accidents unnecessary and avoidable -- if the pilots had pulled the parachute handle like in the walnut grove. Similar situations for icing, disorientation, VFR in IMC, fumes in the cockpit, off-airport forced landings, etc. After reviewing each of the 84 fatal Cirrus accidents, my assessment is that 28 had a good change of survival and 24 had a great chance of survival -- if the Cirrus parachute had been deployed. The other 32 were too low or too unlikely for the pilot to act. Those 52 accidents killed 105 people.

Getting into a bad situation should not be a death sentence.
FedExCargoPilot
would best glide speed then forced landing be softer than this parachuting in the cirrus? landing that hard w/parachute? i hope they opened the doors to avoid pressure difference..
stuartsm
stuartsm 1
Fully loaded and touchdown at around 65 kts results in about 1,000,000 j's of energy to dissipate. At 17 its the energy works about to be around 50,000 j's. A very good ditching would allow that million j's to come off in a few skips across the water, but a sudden stop would be disastrous. The numbers suggest the chute as the far safer option.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
Best glide to a runway is certainly softer. Best glide to a field with a stump, rock, tree, fence, wingtip flip or best glide to a stall have all killed Cirrus pilots. Dying is harder than a landing under parachute canopy.
todinskino
Todd Snider 0
lol, like it or not its the truth. Its not a bad thing at all. You'll embrace life and see your true priorities. JUST DON'T ASK FOR IT.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 0
You've never really lived until you've almost died.
BenKFIT
Ben Lillie 0
Then I'd rather not really live. :)
CaptainArt
I find that one stupid statement. I hope nobody believes that.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 0
It's true Arthur. When we used to return from a mission with our helicopter all shot up we would feel euphoric. The whiskey even tasted better. Life was better.
jcarey805
Jeff Carey 0
Trainning pays off again. Good job.
MANBOI
MANBOI 0
Where did the 1700fpm decent rate come from? The story said they hit at about 15mph. I don't know how much they would be drifting vs straight down. Either way that not much more than a normal decent rate for landing in a jet and they were landing on water. Sounds like they did everything right. Some have suggested gliding to an island or reef but the chute becomes worthless too low so he pulled it at 2,000' having been trained in its use. Good outcome.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
1700 fpm was demonstrated during certification tests. Furthermore, we have recorded flight data from several Cirrus parachute deployments and that descent rate was observed. Drift is slightly less than observed winds aloft. The story actually says 25 mph, but 1700 fpm is 17 knots or 20 mph. Dick exaggerated a bit. Sorry.
Hdunbar
Henry Dunbar 0
Why didnt the pilot start looking for an airport or safe landing area when he first noticed the dropping oil pressure? Might have only needed a new engine vs a whole aircraft.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
The pilot did divert as soon as the oil pressure dropped below 25 psi. Location offshore of the Bahamas did not provide many landing choices.
bmathews1
Why are you all so against pulling the chute? Once you determine you are going to have an off airport landing, you are very unlikely to land intact, the plane will belong to the insurance company anyway. Most beautiful meadows or fields are full of stumps, holes, cow patties (or cows), furrows, a whole variety of things that will screw up your otherwise beautiful forced landing and pretzel your airplane. Especially with the minimal clearance under the wheel pants on this plane. Since it already belongs to the insurance company, WHY NOT pull the chute and protect your LIFE. The unsuccessful pulls have been the ones where the pilots waited until it was too late, either too low to the ground or in a dive at excessive speed. The fatal rate in Cirrus is in fact much lower than other GA. All that said, I had my Cirrus for 4 or 5 years before I figured this out. I too wanted to "land" if it looked "good" from the aspect of my initial emergency training. And the problem is, we can't wait until it happens to make the "pull" decision. You have to figure out in advance your parameters. for me, now, it's give me pavement, or give me parachute!
pfp217
pfp217 0
I agree. I think this system is a good one. I think it gets a bad perception by some because there is a belief that a pilot might go beyond their limits because they've got an easy way out. I've heard and read this in discussion of the system. When used as intended and when intended though it has been a lifesaver.
I have never flown a Cirrus product but I have been to the plant in Duluth and seen the manufacturing process and was impressed. I think what spikes the Cirrus' safety record is the fact that it is alot of airplane. It's much more powerful that the 172 and Warrior that many pilots are coming to it from.
With a pilot trained in the aircraft and with the BRS though I think this aircraft is a very good one both in performance and safety!
MANBOI
MANBOI 0
Have there been any deaths w/Cirrus BRS when used properly? I know there have been many deaths when trying unsuccessfully to make it to a runway.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
No. 100% survival rate when the Cirrus parachute system was activated within design parameters (133 KIAS airspeed and above 1000 feet loss of altitude). One activation was believed to be about 300 KIAS and the parachute ripped off and that pilot died. A few activations were very low (below 200 feet) or not soon enough (just 4 seconds prior to impact in a spin) and people died. For sure, people have died in Cirrus aircraft trying to stretch their glide, or maneuvering in an emergency, or losing control.
bmathews1
Oh and btw, I had a conversation with the couple who had the 4th pull. Their plane descended into a walnut grove and did land basically intact. Except for walnut damage! He said it looked a bit like hail damage. And the LEOs had the darnedest time figuring out how he got it in there.
bmathews1
Water landing is harder than ground landing under the chute, because the gear is designed to absorb shock, doesn't work in water. Sorry for the verbosity.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
To be clear, there are several more energy absorbing features of the Cirrus cockpit than just the flexible landing gear legs. The seat bottoms are designed to crush under vertical load by using a lightweight honeycomb aluminum structure. The four-point seat belt restraints keep your back firmly against the seat back. The seats meet the 26G design specification for horizontal impacts. The yokes are side-mounted to avoid impaling injuries. The passenger glareshield is sloped away to avoid head impacts. The cockpit structure itself is the strongest part of the airframe and the doors positively lock in place to maintain rigidity.

BTW, anyone notice that Dick and Elaine were uninjured?
RJBrown409
Randy Brown -2
Stupid pilots buy Cirrus. That is who they were designed for. People too dumb to operate landing. Too dumb to get an IFR rating. This time too stupid to have oil. Gee I ran my engine out of oil then just pulled the ripcord. There was a Cirrus pilot too stupid to miss a tow plane WITH glider attached. Made for spectacular TV when it floated down on FIRE. Cirrus acts like the parachute saved a life? Haven't they heard of a successful ditching? Plastic airplanes are better off at the bottom of the ocean.
How much does it cost to install a windscreen in a Cirrus? How much does the chute cost to repack. How do you fix damage to a Cirrus. They are $500,000 throw away planes.
stuartsm
stuartsm 1
Randy, please don't let the facts dissuade you from your opinion.
bmathews1
ok. Yep, jealousy was what I was thinking too, Wayne. Note: Attitudes also cause accidents. Or Randy caught the wife in bed with somebody else yesterday. But Randy - really - almost all Cirrus pilots are IFR rated, and usually if not already their insurer will require it, just like any other high performance airplane. IFR Magazine - do you subscribe? (oh, it says "for accomplished pilots") this month has an article page 14 titled "Stupid Pilot Tricks" - i.e. things we can learn from others, and stupidity is definitely involved, listing numerous incidents/accidents some fatals - not a single one involved a Cirrus driver. Huh.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Do we have a little jealousy here??? Name calling doesn't get you anywhere and as PFP217 says here there are a lot of other stupid pilots, according to the NTSB, and some of them probably wished they had one of those chutes. Even Cirrus said in the report that 90% of ditchings were successful, but there is always the chance you'll be in that 10%. They designed new and incorporated it into the design. Just because it's different don't mean it's bad.
pfp217
pfp217 0
Interesting. Because I've looked at the NTSB reports a few times and there's a plethora of stupid pilots in every type imagineable who were too stupid to have enough fuel on board. There are plenty of those "too stupid to get an IFR rating": who flew their beloved Cessna into the soup they couldn't get out of.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
Wow! All of the nasty things I've read from Cirrus detractors in one single post! Well done.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
BTW, about 12 of the Cirrus aircraft that descended under parachute were repaired and few again.
zennermd
zennermd 0
I didn't know that could be done. I thought it did enough damage to the plane so it couldn't be repaired at a reasonable cost.
PLANESOLUTIONS
Another case of a person using the wrong aircraft for the job. He took an unreasonable risk flying a single engine aircraft over open water For the same money he could have bought a very nice pre-owned Bonanza or Seneca and had more capability all around.
bmathews1
yep as I said above, good to have a second engine to get you to the scene of the crash!
PLANESOLUTIONS
This is an old mis-conception used for years by folks who for don't understand aviation very well and was formed back in the days of Piper Apache's and such that performed very poorly on a single engine. Modern twin engine aircraft perform reasonably well on a single engine and are really not hard to fly under single engine conditions. In my 2 occurances of losing an engine in flight I managed to survive both (and actually land on a real runway). The first was in a Seminole while training and a cracked engine block led to loss of all oil and inflight shut down during cruise flight. (similar to the Cirrus crash above). The second was an engine loss at 400 feet right after take off in a King Air 90. In that case I continued my climbout and flew the pattern and again returned to the runway. Apparently the poster's personal experience has been less favorable.
RJBrown409
Randy Brown -3
My comment is an attack more on Cirrus products than their customers.
Cirrus gets the customers they troll for.
I believe the parachute is a silly sales gimic.
The fixed gear is part of the dumbing down they do.
No composit yet has not had delamination issues. Left out in the sun on the ramp will make them need the parachute sooner or later.
I expect that delamination issues will follow just like the Diamond DA20 wing spar issues. Repair of an aluminum plane is straight forward. Repair of plastic is not.
I was at Arapahoe Aero yesterday. They are replacing a windscreen on a Cirrus. Not straight forward very expencive. When ask how much they told me "You really don't want to know"
Years ago the Bonanza got the nickname "Doctor Killer" Not Beech's fault in my opinion. That segment of the market was attracted to what really is a great plane. Cirrus activly went after this market. The salesmanship worked. New and diffetent sells. If I were GIVEN a Cirrus it would be for sale the next day. Real planes are made of aluminum. 50 years from now there will be more 100 year old aluminum planes flying than 50 year old plastic ones.
bmathews1
Bet you don't eat quiche, either, do ya. The parachute concept was born when Alan Klapmeier was in a mid-air collision while training under the hood with an instructor. The other plane, crashed and fatal; the instructor was able to land Klapmeier's plane even though it has lost a wingtip. The Klapmeiers saw the real safety issue from a personal perspective, when they designed the airplane. Don't know about all that composite stuff you say. I do know it's a dang expensive plane to maintain!!!! Much is still excessively expensive because of patent issues, very little after market parts. They wanted $700 for my landing light! And the aftermarket one the mechanic found after much searching was "only" $300. Geez. I've replaced the $600 battery three times in the 5 years. Every annual I start thinking about stepping down. Especially now that it's Chinese owned and so is Continental. But it's depreciated tremendously. Regarding the gear: one it's a safety issue (lots of belly landings out there, never by Cirrus driver!) But also as attested by the RV builder who thought retract gear would make it faster - turns out it's so heavy it actually slows down the slick plane!
And interestly at the Cirrus seminars and trainings I have been to, I have learned that the biggest selling point is wives. (I don't have one of those though). Non-pilot wives enjoy the comfort of the cabin and the existence of the chute. Pilot husbands are happy their wives will now fly with them. Sells lots of planes.
Arapahoe did the maintenance on my plane for it's first three years, and the pre-buy. Good outfit. Too bad they missed the cracks in 3 cylinders though. Oh yeah, more $$$.
I also agree with the idea that low-time pilots probably shouldn't be driving them. (Probably they should not be in any hi-performance plane). Too many cool (distracting) gadgets. Witness the dude who landed on a street a mile from the Pilot Country airport in Tampa. He said "that's where the GPS said it was". I say: "Look out the window, man!"
codemeg
Rick Statton 0
"Bill King, a vice president for Duluth-based Cirrus, said Saturday’s life-saving deployment was the 32nd since the device was introduced in 1999."

When will the famed quote "Doctor Killer" be taken from Bonanza and given to the P.O.S Cirrus?!!!!
hiflier32
ric lang 0
WOULD AGREE THAT THE BONANZA WAS GIVEN THAT "DOCTOR KILLER" TAG ERRONEOUSLY.....WHAT KILLED THE DOCTORS WAS THAT THEY HAD THE MONEY TO BUY A SOPHESTICATED, FAST AIRPLANE THAT THEY WERE ILL EQUIPPED TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE......I HAVE, IN MY LIFE, KNOWN MORE THAN A FEW MD's THAT TRIED DESPERATELY TO KILL THEMSELVES, ONE TIME AT A DOCTOR'S FLYIN AT WASHINGTON ISLAND, MICHIGAN....SOME 600 WERE INVITED, INCLUDING THE FLYING PHYSICIANS ASSN. MEMBERS, ALMOST ALL REPLIED POSITIVELY THEY WOULD ATTEND, ONLY 233 ACTUALLY MADE IT..OH WELL!!!
preacher1
preacher1 0
take your CAPS LOCK off. Looks like you're mad.
PLANESOLUTIONS
Cirrus makes a well engineered modern aircraft. They were brave in pushing the envelope of deisgn and materials. My understanding of the fixed gear corresponds with BM and I heard that retractable may have given a knot of two and was not worth the expense and complexity. they did a good job of streamlining it. My problem with Cirrus is that as stated above, many under experienced pilots with $500K are lured in to a false sense of security by the technology and the parachute. I've followed most of the accidents and almost all were due to poor airmanship or poor decision making. Cirrus has improved their training program to help this issue but nothing is 100% effective. Aircraft are expensive, especially if you are not able to depreciate and expense them through a business. this leads many to "under buy" to save money but then expect the aircraft to perform in ways it was never designed to and expect reliability and safety it just can't deliver. I think the only solution is continual training and awareness.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
"My problem with Cirrus is that as stated above, many under experienced pilots with $500K are lured in to a false sense of security by the technology and the parachute." Would it surprise you that more than half of the fatal accidents were with pilots who had lots of time in type? Over 800 hours. Is that experienced?

Now, low time-in-type is a problem, but that's true when any of us buy a new type of aircraft.

Interesting coutnerpoint -- The Flight Academy has trained over 100 ab initio pilots in a Cirrus to private pilot certificates, many going on immediately to qualify with an instrument rating. No crashes. Purdue University, Western Michigan University, Lake Superior College all have a fleet of Cirrus trainers. The Air Force Academy bought 25 Cirrus aircraft for their powered flight program for cadets, the T-53A.

Yup, training matters. Less so the aircraft model.
PLANESOLUTIONS
Rick, I suspect there is a major difference in the character of your and my examples. The University trainers are training dedicated students to become professional pilots. I don't remember any cirrus accidents involving professional pilots. Many of the accidents I've seen are owner flown (CEO's, Doctors, etc) and if not low time in type, then at least low time overall - Especially low time in IFR conditions. It's hard (if not impossible)to train out risky personality traits.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
Regrettably, the Delta Academy, now Aerosim, has had a fatal accident at Deltona, FL involved professional pilots. Two certificated pilots flying an SR20 and performing slow flight maneuvers got into a 5-turn spin. Witnesses report the parachute deployed close to the ground, perhaps 50 to 200 feet. The plane hit trees and both pilots died. Another air taxi pilot, flying Part 135, crashed at Woodruff, WI, while low on the approach and 3 people died.

To be sure, the overwhelming majority of fatal Cirrus accidents involve owner/operators and about half have less than 250 hours time-in-type.

But the overall fatal accident rate for Cirrus models is right in the middle of the rates for comparable aircraft types. So says Paul Bertorelli of Aviation Consumer in his January 2012 article.

Yet, we have this persistent Cirrus-bashing and hyperbolic assertions about the pilots who fly Cirrus aircraft that do no bear up under scrutiny. If not for the 5,000 innovative Cirrus aircraft built in the past 10 years attracting more people to personal air transportation, where would general aviation be today?
preacher1
preacher1 0
I tell you what all this is going to come down to; it's basically the same argument as with Boeing and Airbus. Most long time pilots out there on big iron had nothing over the years but Boeing, later mixed with MD. Then along came Airbus with a new thought process and some works, some hasn't. GA is about the same here. Most folks out there cut their teeth on Cessna or Piper and here you have a new kid on the block. Guess what people, if the Lord don't come anytime soon, there will probably be others.
danielsallee12
Daniel Sallee 0
I might cause a stir here... but as an airline pilot and someone who owns a single engine airplane, I was taught from day 1 with flying, that the solution to a problem like this is not to "create" the problem in the first place. Why take a single engine airplane somewhere you can't glide to a safe landing spot (i.e. land)? Avoid mountains at night, water when you can't glide to either side, etc. Seems like he did a good job given the situation, by why put yourself to start with?
preacher1
preacher1 0
Daniel: you are very correct and most anyone that had decent flight instruction is probably taught the same way. That being said, there are some that will forget that basic from time to tim and some, as with this one, we read about. Some get by with it. I believe that the article said he had done this before so it was probably getting routine, but as you and me both know, especially flying big iron, Mr. Murphy shows up at unexpected times and cause problems like this, to which you defintely need to have a plan B ready. I guess it was good they had the chute, but as you say, they shouln't have been there in the first place.
danielsallee12
Daniel Sallee 0
Agreed completely Wayne. I think the best thing to do is look at this as a great reminder to always have that plan B, particularly when there are less options and less engines.
MANBOI
MANBOI 0
And you have to ask your self constantly and know what you're going to do if/when the engine quits. Assume it will and hope it doesn't. That's why in the jet we do a briefing before every take off establishing what we're going to do if...
preacher1
preacher1 0
10-4, assume the worst and hope for the best. Ain't nothing like a good routine flight, regardless of what you are in. A couple of weeks ago I did a fill in for DAL, turning one of their ragged old 9's from MEM to ATL and back. Routine going down, other than the pucker factor for ATL(but to me, that don't matter what you are in) but on the way back, not far out of ATL, we just completly lost the AP. No real big deal; we just hand flew it back to MEM. No big deal but you better know what to do with whatever you are driving. Took a little more work and not routine but it had to be handled.
danielsallee12
Daniel Sallee 1
Wayne, I heard you guys are closing the MEM pilot base. Sad to hear, it's been around for an awful long time... When does it officially close?
preacher1
preacher1 1
Tell you the truth, I really don't know. I just do fill in over there and up until a few months ago, it was mostly for Pinnacle. DAL based several over there last year and they found out I was available. They have me and 2-3 others and it's cheaper for them to do that than build up the base any. Pinnacle has downsized over there and moved AC out to other place, but MEM is still a gathering point for RJ's out of KOKC and a bunch of Western points but instead of going on direct from there to a lot of points like you used to could do on NWA/Pinnacle, DAL is now taking a lot of that traffic into ATL. I'm a thinkin they have about 1/2 dozen turns a day from there into ATL. It would not surprise me for them to close it and originate those in ATL but I didn't hear anything about when I was over there. Of course I was called for a 6am departure and back around noon so I didn't have much chance to talk to anyone.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Daniel, one thing you may have heard too. Pinnacle was laying off a whole bunch of non flying people over there, gate, ticket, etc. I think most of the DAL crews live in ATL area anyway and DH in there.
danielsallee12
Daniel Sallee 0
Yeah I heard they were downsizing the whole MEM operation quite a bit. I'm just curious because I'm not familiar with DALs pilot contract, but how does the fill in deal work? Most pilot contracts would not allow that, but I've always thought it would make sense.
preacher1
preacher1 0
They(DAL) still haven't made up their mind what they are going to do with it. They have been screwing with it it ever since they started taking over NWA. As far as the fill in and the contracts. I am not sure exactly how the contracts read. I am semi retired off a corporate job(qualified and typed thru a 767) out of KFSM and was doing work for Eagle and some AA out of DFW and Pinnacle and then DAL out of MEM. I got a couple of buddies down there but it is my understanding that they can only call me or somebody else after they have exhausted or at least offered a flight to all on their roster.
danielsallee12
Daniel Sallee 0
That makes sense contract-wise. Sounds like a pretty good deal for some part-time flying!
BoeingFan59
Troy Raiteri 0
MEM is downsizing the RJs? About freaking time!
preacher1
preacher1 0
Problem is Troy, they are probably going to wind up with nothing at all, except like in the old days, FEDEX.
BoeingFan59
Troy Raiteri 0
Well I'm alright with that. I mean MEM has been overloaded with so many RJs it's not even funny. I mean this is a DAL hub but yet Delta sends their A319/A320s in like what every 6 hours? And on the regional side they send in "their" RJs every 2 seconds basically.
MANBOI
MANBOI 0
This thread drifted further than a Cirrus with BRS deployed.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 0
Maybe further than an airliner with both pilots asleep.
BoeingFan59
Troy Raiteri 0
Well I'm alright with that. I mean MEM has been overloaded with so many RJs it's not even funny. I mean this is a DAL hub but yet Delta sends their A319/A320s in like what every 6 hours? And on the regional side they send in "their" RJs every 2 seconds basically.
preacher1
preacher1 0
I doubt DAL will use it much longer. They are running them AB's in there but they are also running them ragged ass 9's as well. At least one is staying there at night.
BoeingFan59
Troy Raiteri 0
So do you think that now that SWA has acquired AirTran you think they will make a move on MEM? I think not cause AT only has 1 gate here.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Not sure. SWA is in and pretty big at LIT,BNA, and BHM
BoeingFan59
Troy Raiteri 0
Memphis has been waiting for SWA for a long time and let me tell you your not wrong about DAL directing everything to ATL as now Atlanta is the top in PAX Volume at MEM.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well, I dunno; they may come in there but I doubt it will be anywhere direct. They won't use it for a Hub. I wish they would but I doubt it.You may not like all those RJ's but I can guarantee you the folks from Pinnacle did.
BoeingFan59
Troy Raiteri 0
Don't get me wrong I like the RJs I just didn't like the idea of clogging up half a terminal with them.
preacher1
preacher1 0
That' how it is when you're a hub though, don't matter whether it's RJ's or whatever; they'll all be there at once
frontrange
"The solution to a problem like this is not to 'create' the problem in the first place" The CAPS is only on the Cirrus because during flight testing, it couldn't recover from a spin in the proper amount of altitude required to certify an aircraft. Instead of changing the design and making the airplane safer (because that would have cost a lot of money,) they added the CAPS (Cirrus Airframe Parachute System, for those that don't know) in order to make it recover from a stall. They advertise it as a safety device, but that's not why it's on the airplane.
sbuchart
sbuchart 0
So, what's the difference of flying over mountainous areas, woods, cities (ex: departing at Chicago Midway), etc. etc. etc. All have very limited, if any, landing options if the engine quits. Flying over water is just like flying over those areas.
MALCOLMOHARA
Do you refuse overseas routes? Should Air France?
preacher1
preacher1 0
@Troy Raiteri: had you on my mind for a bit last week as I was coming over there last Friday with an RON but I had a 0600 departure to ATL and by the time I got over there and to the Hotel, I grabbed a bite to eat and died. Got back in before lunch with only a late afternoon flight available back to KFSM. Had a friend leaving Tunica; he dropped in and picked me up. Catch you next time.
BoeingFan59
Troy Raiteri 0
Oh haha hell I was probably asleep..yeah night owl here haha.
skyfly12
shawn white 0
Why can't they glide instead of deploying a parachute?
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
In this case, they did both. Cirrus pilots have a choice for emergency recovery procedures that other pilots do not. When one loses engine power, you are forced to land. Gliding is possible and in this case, the pilot, Dick, established best glide immediately after the engine seized by trimming all the way back. So, they did glide. Until it became apparent that the glide would end up being short of Andros Island. Now what? Cirrus pilots can choose to make a conventional ditching or pull the red parachute handle and descend under canopy. Conventional ditching requires flying all the way into the flare and touchdown on water -- then getting everyone and your survival/rescue equipment. Descending under canopy gives Cirrus pilots time to prepare for egress -- briefing passengers, locating and securing survival and rescue gear, communicating position, bracing for impact, etc.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well, the other thing to consider about conventional ditching. This gear is non retract. Consquently, that's just about like sticking a post in the ground. The gear is going to try and stop, but the plane will try and keep on going, hence tip forward and probably upside down. To me the chute would be a lot better as Rick stated above, more time to prepare for the inevitable.
USMA61
USMA61 0
Good job, Doctor. Glad you and your daughter were not injured. Thanks for sharing your story with us.
jetman1
Larry Sturm 0
The pilot stated that he had been watching a dipping oil pressure gauge for a while. There are plenty of airports in the area he was at, he should have landed long before the engine seized.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
Yup, plenty of airports out of glide range. Where did you get any indication that he should have landed long before the engine seized? How can you pass judgment on what he should have done without better data?

For the record, Dick departed Miami enroute to Haiti with a route that passed close to and west of Andros Island. On the way to the Island flying at 9,500 feet, he saw the low oil-pressure indicator and it went red within 3-4 minutes. He turned towards land. The engine seized pretty quickly, perhaps 30 miles from start to finiah he says, and he trimmed for best glide -- only to realize he was going to be short of land.

Cheers
Rick
smokey831
smokey831 0
Don't know coz I wasn't there. Arm chair pilots are very much like arm chair quarter backs. Annoying!

Happy thet everyone got out safe coz that is the main point here. Shheeessssss!
preacher1
preacher1 0
Both you guys are right. For whatever reason he made a mistake in not landing, but it is good they got out OK. There may be 9 million reasons he didn't land and this is all over and done with in the media so we'll probably not hear anymore about it, hence anything else would be pure speculation.
jetman1
Larry Sturm 0
The pilot stated "that he had been watching a dipping oil pressure for a while" . There are plenty of airports in the Bahamas that he could have landed at instead of waiting until the engine seized, then using the cute.
chalet
chalet 0
I have flown a number of times from MIA to Nassau, St. Lucia, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Aruba, Curazao, Point a Pitre, Martinique and Virgin Islands and I can tell you there are NOT plenty of airports in the Bahamas or along the route to Haiti for that matter to use in an emergency, it is risky for single engine planes.
msvmaier
msvmaier 0
The Cirrus crew made a conscious risk management decision that worked. They brought flotation too. Well done, I'd say. Speculation about whether they should have deployed the parachute cracks me up (pun intended). Any emergency landing you walk away from is a good landing folks.
gswiatek
Glenn Swiatek 0
Great set of comments throughout. Though lots of bias everywhere, seems a lot of pilots are the statistical ego inflated ... well any way. My 2 cents -

Mooney would likey not had as tough a time. It seems to me that there were 5,000 ( Wow ) planes that Mooney should have got a good percentage.

Funny how people think they're difficult to land. I found it easier than a 172 after I finally figured out you need to keep adding trim until the threshold. Easy with that little thumb switch.

Wonder why instructors never tell you some things.
gswiatek
Glenn Swiatek 0
this comment did't insert to the correct reply point - My reply was in response to the rhetorical question - Where would aviation be today ( without the Cirrus ). They are fast, they pass me up in my litle 4 banger 201.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
Glenn, my rhetorical question was intended to credit Cirrus with expanding the market. Yes, they sold 5,000 planes since 1999. But based on a few conversations with Cirrus owners, I know that some of their friends came back to flying in other models. I suspect that some of the advertising and marketing of the innovations in the Cirrus SR2X line reignited the desire to fly -- and some of those bought Mooneys, Bonanazas, and Cessna, even Columbia products.
cfboy
mark halden 0
As the owner of a Beech Queen Air who has experienced one engine failure and 2 emergency landings with single engine aircraft.I am a firm believer that what Cirrus has developed is a good idea. However, the concept/comments that the second engine of a twin only gets you to the crash site faster is a fallacy. This misnomer was created by the introduction of the twin engine aircraft in the 50's and 60's that were severely underpowered, ie the Piper Apache. Most twin engine aircraft today, if flown correctly, will permit the pilot the opportunity to reach a suitable landing zone to make a controlled landing safely without damage. But as long as there are pilots who insist on flying at low altitude, flying over large expanses of open water, or inhospitable terrain in single engine aircraft, particularly with piston engines (that will eventually fail), there will be crashes resulting in fatalities. Somehow the acquisition of a pilot's license gives some pilots a "god-like" complex forgetting the basic principles of altitude is your friend, weather is your enemy, and all aircraft have weight limits and fuel restrictions that need to be adhered to. If Cirrus or another quality company were to build a twin engine six seater aircraft, in a composite, safety orientated fuselage I would purchase one in a heart beat. Cirrus keep up the good work!
hiflier32
ric lang 0
Ah yes.............nothing like flying an airplane that has a parachute attached to it!
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 0
If a person wants a chute why not just wear one. Much cheaper.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
Neither easy to exit from a modern design with doors held closed by the airstream, and not so comforting for the passengers! ;-)
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 0
The doors on my modern design columbia 400 weren't held closed by airstream. They would be out of your way in a heartbeat!lol. I was just kidding anyhow. I do wonder what the useful load on a cirrus is. The chute system has to weigh a fair amount. I'm all for it if it trips your trigger.
StanleyJohnson
Randy, the Bonanzas were not "split tailed doctor killers" It just so slippery that when they came out of the clouds upside down at 300 knots they were not trained. After all, the Fairchild 24 did'nt do that. Navions had the same problems.
capnvic
sorry but I am not going to spend money here to read a news story that should be free like all the others,when did this start?
preacher1
preacher1 0
Vic: that must have just started with that newspaper. This story was posted a week ago and yours is the first comment here about a fee. I read it for free last weekend.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
The story was posted a week ago and the paper has put it behind an archive paywall.

Here's another version of the story: www.cirruspilots.org/blogs/pull_early_pull_often/archive/2012/01/09/early-reflections-on-caps-pull-32-by-dick-mcglaughlin-in-the-bahamas.aspx
capnvic
sorry Rick,same thing,pay to read.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
Were you blocked trying to read the blog I linked?

For other versions of the story:
AOPA: http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2012/120111-cirrus-chutes-to-safety-off-bahamas-with-none-hurt.html

wired.com: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/01/pilot-uses-airplane-parachute-after-engine-quits-over-bahamas

ABC news: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/father-daughter-rescued-plane-crashes-caribbean-sea-bahamas-15327993

Cheers
Rick
nycowboy
Jack Gelb 0
Can't access the article any more ... too bad, it sounded interesting from the comments
preacher1
preacher1 0
Bottom line was that a Dr & daughter were going to Haiti as they had many times before. Oil press had been spiking; engine seized up. He deployed chute rather than dich. She got a head bump but both survived OK.
nycowboy
Jack Gelb 0
Thanks, Wayne ... did finally get a usable link to the story. Great job by the pilot (1 point off for the small raft!), and a happy ending.
cfboy
mark halden 0
Now if you guys what to see good footage of what happens to a pilot who has a problem and screws up without a parachute, check out YOUTUBE for Dec.10 2011 in the Philippians.
oakwood
My response is for Randy Brown who made the outrageous statement that stupid pilots buy Cirrus. I have purchased three new cirrus aircraft since 2003. Each purchase was based on increased safety. I must be really stupid. I live in the mountains of Eastern Kentucky and fly at night. In the event of engine failure or avionics failure, especially in IFR conditions, short of a runway there is NO place to land. I prefer to rely on the chute. Oh yeah, I am IFR rated and train annually. I really dont know any pilots that I would consider stupid.
HunterTS4
Toby Sharp 0
pretty nutts..........glad he has his required flying over water equipment! well done Dr
frontrange
"The solution to a problem like this is not to 'create' the problem in the first place" The CAPS is only on the Cirrus because during flight testing, it couldn't recover from a spin in the proper amount of altitude required to certify an aircraft. Instead of changing the design and making the airplane safer (because that would have cost a lot of money,) they added the CAPS (Cirrus Airframe Parachute System, for those that don't know) in order to make it recover from a stall. They advertise it as a safety device, but that's not why it's on the airplane.
markvb
markvb 1
Yup...and all that BS about wearing seat belts in cars, drinking and driving, and smoking causing cancer
stuartsm
stuartsm 1
100% false. Cirrus passed spin certification in Europe with zero problems. The chute was not "added", it is an integral part of the Cirrus airframe. Probably a mistake in hindsight but the Cirrus was't spin certified because it didn't have to be, BECAUSE it had a chute. Do your research, read all you want, but please don't perpetuate this myth about the airplane being unrecoverable from a spin.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
Misinformation. Don't repeat.

The Cirrus recovers from spins conventionally in all tested cases.

Cirrus added CAPS as an innovative safety feature that both the FAA and Cirrus agreed would afford pilots an additional recovery from stall/spin accidents. To satisfy the spin testing requirement of FAR Part 23, the FAA granted an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) on condition that Cirrus demonstrate that the parachute could recover a Cirrus SR20 in a fully developed 1-1/2 spin. You often see that certification test video replayed.

The Europeans would not accept the FAA ELOS without conducting a limited spin-test matrix. About 60 spins were conducted and they found recovery to be conventional in all cases. The COPA website hosts a copy of the JAA report. The Europeans, and all other national certification agencies, have accepted the FAA ELOS data and certified the Cirrus SR20/SR22 models.

Why put CAPS on the airplane? Safety is no option! And that originated with the founder's experience of surviving a midair collision years before. There had to be a better way.

Cheers
Rick
bessmagoo
This thread could use a little grounding.

How about a word from a survivor?

Then you may proceed with your analyses and criticisms, some of which are pretty good.

Well, not yours, Randy Brown, you are a kind of moron.

And FedexCargoPilot, I'll swim a few miles in shark infested waters just after you, thanks.

But let's take it from the top.
Chalet's question, and a good one:

Why fly a single engine piston over big water?

Because I can afford to.

A mid time G2 SR 22 bought well used, flies 175 knots on 13.5 gph, Ft Pierce to Port au Prince in 4:10, 23 gallons available at landing, and it has a useful load of 1150 lbs, which is enough medical supplies and equipment to run the GI lab there for a month.

Yes, I'd rather take a KingAir.

But I'm paying my own bills, unlike the big iron fellows, so well trained they wouldn't consider this mission...
And then there'd be no mission, because profit making enterprises don't work in Haiti. And that's who big iron bigshots fly for, mostly on autopilot.
I've made the trip in a BE55- 32 gph, more than twice the maintenance and upkeep, and no better useful load. The CG was a little squirrelly, too.

Maybe an Aztec, and I'm thinking about it- big carriers, a little slower, but plenty of them on the ramp in the Bahamas, so they can take it. 160 knots, at 30 gph. But a 35 year old airframe. And admit it- if I loaded that up and lost one, I'd still be in the water, most likely, ditching, not under the chute. I'll get to that in a minute, but I don't like that as much as the rest of you knuckleheads who just KNOW that ditching is better than a chute over water.

(If one of you has ditched, I'm listening. Otherwise, shut your pie holes, and learn something!)

Jason, from SC, in all my 3000 hours, I don't believe I've ever been dissed by such a clever young punk! 80 hour wonders! You only know you hate a Cirrus, and no idea why.

Henry Dunbar, and Larry Sturm:
I diverted with the oil pressure dropping, but still in the normal range. Nothing wrong with my scan at that point- later it got weaker- see below.
At that point it looked precautionary, but with 40 miles to landfall, I needed a slow leak, and that's not what I got.

Wayne Bookout - "pilot made a mistake not landing..." Really? I think I made a number of mistakes, but that ain't one of them. How would you improve the outcome?
And... "shouldn't have been there in the first place." This might be a reasonable objection...but only if flying a single over the mountains, or over the Southwestern desert, or any other unforgiving geography is also verboten. How much utility do you get out of your single?
Daniel Sallee avoids mountains at night in a single, but logically, he ought to skip days, too. Fly from Denver to Las Vegas- lose an engine- land anywhere, see if you don't wish you had a chute.

And jdmille, you think the chute is a safer descent in some instances, but not this one?
Why not? Two out the door uninjured, unflipped, not disoriented, with time to get the raft, life jackets and PLB.
How much better do you think you could get it, with just your testosterone and a ditch?
And for what? So you could say you flew it all the way into the crash?

Look at the ditch SURVIVAL rates- 90% out the door, and 90% of those don't drown.
81% make it, if my multiplication is right.
Look at CAPS under controlled circumstances- 100%
Why are we having this discussion? I made that decision two years ago.

Here's the thing:

Off airport, out at sea, in the mountains, lose your engine, and you are in a world of hurt.
It's a different thing listening to your engine when it sounds like a bowling ball in a dryer, then the prop goes still.
Lots of good pilots died trying to stretch that glide, pinpoint a landing, avoid a stall/spin while they gauge the swells.

Ask any of them if they wish they had one more out, please God, just one more chance.
Ah, bless 'em, you can't.

I'm here to tell you my performance, and I'll bet a dollar yours, too, degrades under that flood of adrenalin, makes all the fancy calculations and precision maneuvers moot.

But I'm here.

Richard McGlaughlin,MD
ASES, commercial, ASEL, AMEL, CFI, CFII, MEI, AGI,IGI, certified repairman
preacher1
preacher1 0
I think you may need to reread my comment. It was in response to a couple of others, Sparkie and Rick Beach(Rick seems to know you), and those were there words. Here is the next line;
"There may be 9 million reasons he didn't land". Among other things, as a licensed minister I support your work down there. Personally I don't see what all the big deal is over the chute. If you see one of my other comments up there, I do say I'd rather do the chute than a conventional ditching.
hiflier32
ric lang 0
Jesus.......Get a grip, Doc!
rjbeach
Rick Beach 1
Get a grip?

Probably few of you have ever had to deal with an aviation incident. After interviewing a bunch of Cirrus pilots who pulled the red handle, one universal reaction is their angst at reading or hearing about the speculation, criticism, denigration, disrespect, and skepticism directed at them, their training, their actions. In a couple of cases, the pilots really suffered. In Dick's case, he forthrightly replied.

Yes, Dick is someone I know through the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association. He is an aviation enthusiast as well as a humanitarian. And after the Haiti earthquake, he recruited several Cirrus pilots to fly hard-to-obtain medical supplies -- in single-engine over-water flights -- to Haiti. In response to Dick's leadership, COPA members contributed money and supplies, flew missions, and advocated support in several other organizations.

Dick is special. And too many of the comments on this discussion are poor representations of what general aviation has to offer such a person in such an event as this.

Cheers
Rick
hiflier32
ric lang 0
"PROBABLY FEW OF YOU....ETC. ETC"....QUITE A PRESUMPTIOUS STATEMENT, MR. BEACH, YOU SOUND LIKE A PRIVATE PILOT...I WON'T CLOG UP THIS BLOG WITH A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF EXCEPTIONS TO THAT RIDICULOUS REMARK,THERE ARE, APPARENTLY, QUIRE A FEW PRO PILOTS THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS BLOG THAT WISELY, HAVE CHOSEN TO NOT TAKE UMBRAGE TO YOUR REMARK.
rjbeach
Rick Beach 0
Interesting logic. Few? Did I stumble upon a privileged discussion forum overwhelmingly populated by pro pilots who have experienced everything?

Private pilot? Yes, proudly so.

And I wonder what the association might be between the misinformed statements and your reference to the "quite a few pro pilots?" I take umbrage to misinformation whoever states it, whatever their qualifications. Facts, I enjoy. Judgment of pilots without sufficient evidence, I don't enjoy.

Neither did Dick.

Cheers
Rick
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 0
And now we know the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey used to say. Better luck on the next trip.
oakwood
Dr. McGlaughlin, Im so glad that you and your daughter are safe. You are obviously very intelligent and well spoken and i believe a proficient pilot. Thank you for all you do to make our world a better place.
msvmaier
msvmaier 0
. <--
wmalling
Bam Alling 0
Nuts to paying for reading the rest of an article!
mjsracing1
Steve Shaw 0
Been flying since I was 18, and I'm 58 now.....and never have had to ditch over water, so I can only speculate how I would react. Not perfectly I would assume. Either way, Dr. Richard I admire your work and your professional attitude towards some of the comments made by others in your incident. I probably would not have been so professional in my reactions. And Rick Beach, Thanks for your insight into the facts on this aircraft and its working systems. This information answers many questions that most of us non-Cirrus pilots would ask in this situation. And for Barbara Mathews, WOW Girl !!. You can fly right seat in my CJ3 anytime.

Blue Skies All !
MALCOLMOHARA
So do you refuse Trans Atlantic routes?
mjsracing1
Steve Shaw 0
No. But I have two engines, and a great glide rate which is ALWAYS within the guidelines of extended-over-water-operations. Always.
billzeil
bill zeilstra -1
have to pay to read

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!