Cirrus crash midair

[Mxsmanic]

Don't know about low time... but, yeah... his fault.
However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the
right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.
There is no chance the accident is not the fault of the Cirrus pilot. The
NTSB report will read: Failure to give right of way and failure to see and
avoid.

Yup. And the incredible thing is that the same thing has happened before, also
with a Cirrus pilot clipping the tow line of a tow plane. In the previous
case, the pilot pulled the parachute (I guess it didn't occur to him to fly
the plane, although I'm not sure how much damage was done), and floated safely
to earth. Obviously it was the Cirrus pilot's fault in that incident as well.

Cirrus has a poor accident record. There's nothing wrong with the aircraft,
but the company markets its aircraft very aggressively to very naïve, low-time
pilots, emphasizing characteristics other than safety (e.g. prestige, comfort)
and deliberately presenting certain things in a way that is clearly intended
to inspire a false sense of security. This means that a lot of inexperienced
and/or careless pilots buy Cirrus aircraft.

For example, if you look at their marketing, they now talk about icing
protection without mentioning the "entry into known" part, thus creating the
impression that their icing protection allows you to fly through icing
conditions with impunity, which is not at all what FIKI certification is all
about. And they talk about their parachutes as if these can solve any problem
and compensate for any lack of skill on the part of the pilot--without
mentioning that they originally used the parachutes just to get the aircraft
certified (rather than spin testing, if I recall correctly).

There are some Cirrus pilots who are now dead who regularly reassured their
entourage that flying the aircraft was safe because it had a parachute. Either
those pilots were lying, or they had been seriously misled by someone.

Cirrus is the "fork-tailed doctor killer" of our era. The old V-tailed
Bonanzas tended to attract low-time, low-competence, high-income pilots, and
Cirrus aircraft are doing the same thing. I don't know if Beechcraft ever
deliberately tried to target that market as Cirrus is doing, though.

[Loek]

Mx, Dallas,

How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic accident??
(low time and failure to give right of way) Ah, you both were there, right?
You may have read something I don't know about yet, but until you have
proven facts on paper there is no way you can give the Cirrus pilot the
blame / fault for this.

Loek

Post by Mxsmanic

Don't know about low time... but, yeah... his fault.
However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the
right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.
There is no chance the accident is not the fault of the Cirrus pilot.
The
NTSB report will read: Failure to give right of way and failure to see and
avoid.

Yup. And the incredible thing is that the same thing has happened before, also
with a Cirrus pilot clipping the tow line of a tow plane. In the previous
case, the pilot pulled the parachute (I guess it didn't occur to him to fly
the plane, although I'm not sure how much damage was done), and floated safely
to earth. Obviously it was the Cirrus pilot's fault in that incident as well.
Cirrus has a poor accident record. There's nothing wrong with the aircraft,
but the company markets its aircraft very aggressively to very naïve, low-time
pilots, emphasizing characteristics other than safety (e.g. prestige, comfort)
and deliberately presenting certain things in a way that is clearly intended
to inspire a false sense of security. This means that a lot of
inexperienced
and/or careless pilots buy Cirrus aircraft.
For example, if you look at their marketing, they now talk about icing
protection without mentioning the "entry into known" part, thus creating the
impression that their icing protection allows you to fly through icing
conditions with impunity, which is not at all what FIKI certification is all
about. And they talk about their parachutes as if these can solve any problem
and compensate for any lack of skill on the part of the pilot--without
mentioning that they originally used the parachutes just to get the aircraft
certified (rather than spin testing, if I recall correctly).
There are some Cirrus pilots who are now dead who regularly reassured their
entourage that flying the aircraft was safe because it had a parachute. Either
those pilots were lying, or they had been seriously misled by someone.
Cirrus is the "fork-tailed doctor killer" of our era. The old V-tailed
Bonanzas tended to attract low-time, low-competence, high-income pilots, and
Cirrus aircraft are doing the same thing. I don't know if Beechcraft ever
deliberately tried to target that market as Cirrus is doing, though.

[Bug Dout]

Post by Loek
Mx, Dallas,
How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic accident??

They were making quite reasonable conjecture. Indeed the tow plane and
glider had the legal right of way. More important as to the cause of the
accident, who was going faster? Almost certainly the Cirrus. It's like
saying the Hudson River plane was hit by birds. Not so, the plane hit
the birds.

[John Ward]

Hi Bug Dout,

Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot, and is still with his
country's accident investigation board......,

I'm a little hazy re the details of that last bit, but maybe Loek will
fill us in a bit.

Regards,
John Ward

Post by Bug Dout

Post by Loek
Mx, Dallas,
How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic accident??

They were making quite reasonable conjecture. Indeed the tow plane and
glider had the legal right of way. More important as to the cause of the
accident, who was going faster? Almost certainly the Cirrus. It's like
saying the Hudson River plane was hit by birds. Not so, the plane hit
the birds.
--
No one is completely unhappy at the failure of his best friend.
Groucho Marx

[Loek]

I'm retired now, John. Also for the investigation board.
At this moment I am involved with the selection of candidate pilots for our
Air Force as a part timer. Lots of good fun and even self motivating!

Loek

Post by John Ward
Hi Bug Dout,
Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot, and is still with his
country's accident investigation board......,
I'm a little hazy re the details of that last bit, but maybe Loek will
fill us in a bit.
Regards,
John Ward

Post by Bug Dout

Post by Loek
Mx, Dallas,
How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic accident??

They were making quite reasonable conjecture. Indeed the tow plane and
glider had the legal right of way. More important as to the cause of the
accident, who was going faster? Almost certainly the Cirrus. It's like
saying the Hudson River plane was hit by birds. Not so, the plane hit
the birds.
--
No one is completely unhappy at the failure of his best friend.
Groucho Marx

[John Ward]

Hi Loek,

Got it!

Thanks for the info', mate. :-))

Just out of curiosity, what are your fighter pilots flying these days?

Regards,
John Ward

Post by Loek
I'm retired now, John. Also for the investigation board.
At this moment I am involved with the selection of candidate pilots for
our Air Force as a part timer. Lots of good fun and even self motivating!
Loek

Post by John Ward
Hi Bug Dout,
Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot, and is still with his
country's accident investigation board......,
I'm a little hazy re the details of that last bit, but maybe Loek will
fill us in a bit.
Regards,
John Ward

Post by Bug Dout

Post by Loek
Mx, Dallas,
How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic accident??

They were making quite reasonable conjecture. Indeed the tow plane and
glider had the legal right of way. More important as to the cause of the
accident, who was going faster? Almost certainly the Cirrus. It's like
saying the Hudson River plane was hit by birds. Not so, the plane hit
the birds.
--
No one is completely unhappy at the failure of his best friend.
Groucho Marx

[Loek]

Almost overlooked this one John. Sorry about that.

We are flying the F-16 since 1980. And we may still have to continue to fly
this bird for a while. Politics as you may expect. But we are looking at the
Joint Strike Fighter as the next fighter for our AirForce. Fingers crossed.
No hard decisions have been made yet by our politicians.

Loek

Post by John Ward
Hi Loek,
Got it!
Thanks for the info', mate. :-))
Just out of curiosity, what are your fighter pilots flying these days?
Regards,
John Ward

Post by Loek
I'm retired now, John. Also for the investigation board.
At this moment I am involved with the selection of candidate pilots for
our Air Force as a part timer. Lots of good fun and even self motivating!
Loek

[John Ward]

Hi Loek,

Thanks again, mate.

Aus' is going to JSFs, via an interim of phasing in SuperHornets/phasing
out the F-111s......

Regards,
John Ward

Post by Loek
Almost overlooked this one John. Sorry about that.
We are flying the F-16 since 1980. And we may still have to continue to
fly this bird for a while. Politics as you may expect. But we are looking
at the Joint Strike Fighter as the next fighter for our AirForce. Fingers
crossed. No hard decisions have been made yet by our politicians.
Loek

Post by John Ward
Hi Loek,
Got it!
Thanks for the info', mate. :-))
Just out of curiosity, what are your fighter pilots flying these days?
Regards,
John Ward

Post by Loek
I'm retired now, John. Also for the investigation board.
At this moment I am involved with the selection of candidate pilots for
our Air Force as a part timer. Lots of good fun and even self motivating!
Loek

[Bug Dout]

Post by John Ward
Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot

He's a current ass.

[John Ward]

You should have that seen to.

Post by Bug Dout

Post by John Ward
Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot

He's a current ass.
--
The funny thing about driving your car off a cliff, I bet you're
still hitting those brakes.
- Jack Handey

[Loek]

????

Do you mind helping me on the gramma here, Bug Dout... I'm not sure how to
read this in the correct context?? Thanks

Loek

Post by Bug Dout

Post by John Ward
Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot

He's a current ass.

[John Ward]

Hi Loek,

I wouldn't worry about it, mate - looks like he's bugged out of here.

Regards,
John Ward

Post by Loek
????
Do you mind helping me on the gramma here, Bug Dout... I'm not sure how to
read this in the correct context?? Thanks
Loek

Post by Bug Dout

Post by John Ward
Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot

He's a current ass.

[ManhattanMan]

Post by John Ward
Hi Loek,
I wouldn't worry about it, mate - looks like he's bugged out of here.

groan..............

[Loek]

What's up MM?

Pain in the .. ?? :-))

Loek

Post by ManhattanMan

Post by John Ward
Hi Loek,
I wouldn't worry about it, mate - looks like he's bugged out of here.

groan..............

[Loek]

:-))

I guess so...

Loek

Post by John Ward
Hi Loek,
I wouldn't worry about it, mate - looks like he's bugged out of here.
Regards,
John Ward

Post by Loek
????
Do you mind helping me on the gramma here, Bug Dout... I'm not sure how
to read this in the correct context?? Thanks
Loek

Post by Bug Dout

Post by John Ward
Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot

He's a current ass.

[Ian D]

Post by Bug Dout

Post by Loek
Mx, Dallas,
How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic accident??

They were making quite reasonable conjecture. Indeed the tow plane and
glider had the legal right of way. More important as to the cause of the
accident, who was going faster? Almost certainly the Cirrus. It's like
saying the Hudson River plane was hit by birds. Not so, the plane hit
the birds.
--
No one is completely unhappy at the failure of his best friend.
Groucho Marx

It's clear that the Cirrus pilot was at fault.

Here are the UK aviation right of way rules:

Order of precedence

Flying machines shall give way to Airships, Glider and Balloons
Airships shall give way to gliders and balloons
Gliders shall give way to balloons
Mechanically driven aircraft shall give way to aircraft which are towing
other aircraft or objects

Here are the FAA right of way rules:


91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an
aircraft on water.

(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an
operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules,
vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to
see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another
aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may
not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.

(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other
air traffic.

(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at
approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft
to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different
categories-

(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;

(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered parachute,
weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

(3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute,
weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way
over all other engine-driven aircraft.

(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other head-on,
or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right.

(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way
and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to
pass well clear.

(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing,
have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the
surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an
aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting
to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are
approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower
altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule
to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake
that aircraft.

[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-282, 69
FR 44880, July 27, 2004]

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Loek
How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic accident??
(low time and failure to give right of way) Ah, you both were there, right?

It's a simple process of elimination. VFR conditions, both pilots required to
see and avoid, tow plane has the right of way. The Cirrus aircraft failed to
see and avoid and failed to yield right of way. There aren't too many other
possibilities. It's unlikely to be a mechanical failure or weather.

And as I've said, this has happened before, also with a Cirrus. Quite an eerie
coincidence.

Post by Loek
You may have read something I don't know about yet, but until you have
proven facts on paper there is no way you can give the Cirrus pilot the
blame / fault for this.

Sure you can. Unless you can think of some other possible explanation?

[Loek]

MX,

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment. (I don't know
the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown reason.
Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of them.

The cases I had never were that easy as it looked. There was always
something "funny" part of the pyramid.

Got to go now. I'll be back tomorrow evening!

Cheers,

Loek

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Loek
How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic accident??
(low time and failure to give right of way) Ah, you both were there, right?

It's a simple process of elimination. VFR conditions, both pilots required to
see and avoid, tow plane has the right of way. The Cirrus aircraft failed to
see and avoid and failed to yield right of way. There aren't too many other
possibilities. It's unlikely to be a mechanical failure or weather.
And as I've said, this has happened before, also with a Cirrus. Quite an eerie
coincidence.

Post by Loek
You may have read something I don't know about yet, but until you have
proven facts on paper there is no way you can give the Cirrus pilot the
blame / fault for this.

Sure you can. Unless you can think of some other possible explanation?

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Loek
I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment. (I don't know
the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown reason.
Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of them.

True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other than
simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics, and in
this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.

Even if something obstructed the pilot's view momentarily or his attention was
drawn elsewhere, it's still his fault, as he should have sufficient
situational awareness to know of the other aircraft without having to depend
on a fraction of a second of perception. What about radio calls? What about
traffic patterns? There are multiple ways in which he should have become aware
of the other aircraft.

Unless the surviving pilot and passengers from the glider can shed some
insight into this accident, we may never know what actually happened, but I
don't think it's unreasonable to assume pilot error until proven otherwise.

There's also the eerie coincidence of there being at least one other accident
with a Cirrus that happened pretty much exactly the same way, except that
there were survivors.

[george]

Post by Mxsmanic
True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other than
simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics, and in
this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.

This coming from some-one who has never flown an aircraft in real
time.
Remember that mixedup's only claim to flying is playing flying
simulator games.
And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose

[Mxsmanic]

Post by george
And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose

A Cirrus isn't a sailplane. And a pilot with a blind spot needs to fly in such
a way that he makes allowances for his inability to see in that blind spot.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by george
And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose

A Cirrus isn't a sailplane. And a pilot with a blind spot needs to fly in such
a way that he makes allowances for his inability to see in that blind spot.

All real airplanes have a large blind spot through an arc that starts at
the nose, follows the fuselage around to the tail, and continues over the
airplane to the rearmost window or top of the windscreen depending on
model.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
All real airplanes have a large blind spot through an arc that starts at
the nose, follows the fuselage around to the tail, and continues over the
airplane to the rearmost window or top of the windscreen depending on
model.

So?

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
All real airplanes have a large blind spot through an arc that starts at
the nose, follows the fuselage around to the tail, and continues over the
airplane to the rearmost window or top of the windscreen depending on
model.

So?

So read your previous statement.

[george]

All real airplanes have a large blind spot through an arc that
starts at

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
the nose, follows the fuselage around to the tail, and continues over the
airplane to the rearmost window or top of the windscreen depending on
model.

So?

Its something real pilots know and compensate for by keeping a good
lookout.

Comes under the heading of "airmanship"

[Mxsmanic]

Post by george
Its something real pilots know and compensate for by keeping a good
lookout.
Comes under the heading of "airmanship"

So a failure to do so, leading to a midair collision, is clearly pilot error.
QED.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by george
Its something real pilots know and compensate for by keeping a good
lookout.

So how do some real pilots hit tow planes?

[Richard]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by george
And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose

A Cirrus isn't a sailplane. And a pilot with a blind spot needs to fly in such
a way that he makes allowances for his inability to see in that blind spot.

All real airplanes have a large blind spot through an arc that starts at
the nose, follows the fuselage around to the tail, and continues over the
airplane to the rearmost window or top of the windscreen depending on
model.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.

And still doesn't change the circumstances to with, the tow plane had
ROW and that had nothing at all to do with MSXs's non-experience
except to allow yet another usenet fjucktard (yes 'George', you) with
a chance to chime in and contribute to the noise.

Geez, grow up ladies.

[george]

Post by Richard
And still doesn't change the circumstances to with, the tow plane had
ROW and that had nothing at all to do with MSXs's non-experience
except to allow yet another usenet fjucktard (yes 'George', you) with
a chance to chime in and contribute to the noise.

There's a cartoon somewhere in the world of a wrecked car and an
ambulance.
With the title of
"But I was in the right"

You might notice that amongst the groups he crossposted his crap to
includes rec.aviation.student.
Perhaps where you are its okay to bullshit about being a pilot and
offer uninformed advice as to what the cause of an accident was before
the investigators have done their job.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by george
Perhaps where you are its okay to bullshit about being a pilot and
offer uninformed advice as to what the cause of an accident was before
the investigators have done their job.

What is wrong with advice to see and avoid, or pointing out that tow planes
have right of way?

[Morgans]

"george" <***@hnpl.net> wrote

You might notice that amongst the groups he crossposted his crap to
includes rec.aviation.student.
Perhaps where you are its okay to bullshit about being a pilot and
offer uninformed advice as to what the cause of an accident was before
the investigators have done their job.
**************************************

If you feel you have to reply to MX's post to warn others, consider a
boilerplate warning something like the following.

"The poster (MXS whatever) responsible for the previous post is not a pilot,
and is considered to be a troll. Consider his posts to be argumentative and
unreliable. Consult a responsible and experienced pilot (you would trust
with your life) in a private communication before you believe any advice or
claims the troll has put forth on this forum."

It is my opinion that _ANY_ response to a post made by MX in _ANY_ way,
lends validity to the troll, and you are enabling a troll at work. In
short, you have also become part of the problem.

'Nuff said by me on the issue. I don't want to contribute any more noise to
a problem that should be apparent to all, that should go away if everyone
would use some common sense and self discipline.

[MikeW]

Post by Morgans
If you feel you have to reply to MX's post to warn others, consider a
boilerplate warning something like the following.
"The poster (MXS whatever) responsible for the previous post is not a
pilot, and is considered to be a troll. Consider his posts to be
argumentative and unreliable. Consult a responsible and experienced
pilot (you would trust with your life) in a private communication
before you believe any advice or claims the troll has put forth on
this forum."

Good idea, I like that.

[george]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by george
And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose

A Cirrus isn't a sailplane. And a pilot with a blind spot needs to fly in such
a way that he makes allowances for his inability to see in that blind spot.

http://www.standardcirrus.org/
Wow. Mixedup is wrong again.
Colour me unsurprised

[Mike Ash]

In article

Post by george

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by george
And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose

A Cirrus isn't a sailplane. And a pilot with a blind spot needs to fly in such
a way that he makes allowances for his inability to see in that blind spot.

http://www.standardcirrus.org/
Wow. Mixedup is wrong again.
Colour me unsurprised

What is it about this guy that people must jump to contradict him even
when what he says is totally reasonable?

It's completely clear in context that "A Cirrus" in this case refers to
one of the single engine aircraft built by Cirrus Design, NOT to one of
the two models of sailplane built by Schempp-Hirth. Yes, there are
sailplanes called "Cirrus", but this one was not a sailplane, just as he
says.

[george]

Post by Mike Ash
In article

Post by george

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by george
And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose

A Cirrus isn't a sailplane. And a pilot with a blind spot needs to fly in such
a way that he makes allowances for his inability to see in that blind spot.

http://www.standardcirrus.org/
Wow. Mixedup is wrong     again.
Colour me unsurprised

What is it about this guy that people must jump to contradict him even
when what he says is totally reasonable?
It's completely clear in context that "A Cirrus" in this case refers to
one of the single engine aircraft built by Cirrus Design, NOT to one of
the two models of sailplane built by Schempp-Hirth. Yes, there are
sailplanes called "Cirrus", but this one was not a sailplane, just as he
says.

Very true. However as you know and as I know every aircraft has not
only the makers name but an extension that means a particular aircraft
type.
As in C150, C177.
According to what I read of the report it stated that the accident
happened on aerotow. :-(

Mixedup is not and never has been 'reasonable' ..
Nor has he ever actually flown a real aeroplane- either a sailplane or
a powerplane. He is only here because he has nowhere else to be

[Mxsmanic]

Post by george
Very true. However as you know and as I know every aircraft has not
only the makers name but an extension that means a particular aircraft
type.
As in C150, C177.
According to what I read of the report it stated that the accident
happened on aerotow.

The only time Cirrus has been mentioned in news reports is as the name of the
powered airplane that collided with the tow plane and glider. And it descended
with an aircraft parachute, something that is widely known to be a feature of
Cirrus powered aircraft.

[Gezellig]

Post by george
Mixedup is not and never has been 'reasonable' ..
Nor has he ever actually flown a real aeroplane- either a sailplane or
a powerplane. He is only here because he has nowhere else to be

Of course, you so bored, as many others are, you play with him.

Remember this next time you moan about how RAP is "going to the trolls".

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Mike Ash
What is it about this guy that people must jump to contradict him even
when what he says is totally reasonable?

A great many people are unable to separate their animosity or affection
towards a particular person from the objective validity of what he or she
says.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by george
http://www.standardcirrus.org/
Wow. Mixedup is wrong again.
Colour me unsurprised

The Cirrus in the incident under discussion was a powered airplane
manufactured by Cirrus Aircraft.

[Dave Doe]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by george
And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose

A Cirrus isn't a sailplane. And a pilot with a blind spot needs to fly in such
a way that he makes allowances for his inability to see in that blind spot.

(The Cirrus surely has an even larger blind spot.)

So wot you're sorta saying fly...
A unununununununununununu B

instead of
A ----------------------- B

Have you not done/read any of flying training in MSFS? - I'm sure they'd
cover situational awareness and lookout ('covering/clearing airspace').
This is practiced all the time in real flying MX. It's just not
possible to cover your blind spots all the time.

To be honest, your comment is just ridiculous and stupid. Real pilots
*do* maintain a procedurally based and trained lookout.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Dave Doe
Have you not done/read any of flying training in MSFS? - I'm sure they'd
cover situational awareness and lookout ('covering/clearing airspace').
This is practiced all the time in real flying MX. It's just not
possible to cover your blind spots all the time.

This pilot could have covered his blind spots better than he did, assuming
that blind spots had anything to do with it. It's still pilot error in all
probability.

What do you think caused this crash, if not pilot error?

Post by Dave Doe
To be honest, your comment is just ridiculous and stupid. Real pilots
*do* maintain a procedurally based and trained lookout.

They move their heads, and, if necessary to cover blind spots, they move the
airplane. Failure to do so may have a very grave effect on their situational
awareness, as this incident may have demonstrated. The failure to do so is a
pilot error.

[Alpha Propellerhead]

Post by Mxsmanic

To be honest, your comment is just ridiculous and stupid.  Real pilots
*do* maintain a procedurally based and trained lookout.

They move their heads, and, if necessary to cover blind spots, they move the
airplane.

Thank you for using the word "they."

You don't "move the airplane" to cover blind spots. Ever see rear-view
mirrors on a passenger jet? Ever see one doing a clearing turn? Ever
see an airplane doing clearing turns in a traffic pattern? I've ridden
in B-17s and while the view from the tail is spectacular, the pilots
have no access to it, and they fly in a straight line.

Here's a thing people are just starting to figure out: Pilots A and B
fly an airway by hand. They're off the center of the airway some small
or fractional number of miles instead of following a fixed line like
ants. Now, Pilots C, D, E and F fly Garmin glass panels, they program
in the routes and let the airplane fly them along the airway.
Okay...so, now the latter four pilots are all flying an identical
profile, at all kinds of different speeds, dead center down the
airway. See the problem?

If you're in a Lancair or a Bonanza and don't get your head out of the
cockpit and ignore the extraneous info on a glass panel, you might
chew up a 172 flying the same route or approach ahead of you at a
slower speed whereas before humans would naturally spread themselves
out on the airways.

[Stephen!]

Post by Alpha Propellerhead

Post by Mxsmanic
They move their heads, and, if necessary to cover blind spots, they
move

the

Post by Mxsmanic
airplane.

Thank you for using the word "they."
You don't "move the airplane" to cover blind spots.

You've never lifted a wing to see under it before you turn?

[Mike Ash]

Post by Stephen!

Post by Alpha Propellerhead

Post by Mxsmanic
They move their heads, and, if necessary to cover blind spots, they
move

the

Post by Mxsmanic
airplane.

Thank you for using the word "they."
You don't "move the airplane" to cover blind spots.

You've never lifted a wing to see under it before you turn?

I normally "cut the corner" from downwind to base in the pattern
precisely so that my wing doesn't block my view of the airport during
that portion of the flight. The idea that you don't move the airplane
for visibility is silly as a general rule.

[Jim]

Post by Mike Ash

Post by Stephen!

Post by Alpha Propellerhead

Post by Mxsmanic
They move their heads, and, if necessary to cover blind spots, they
move

the

Post by Mxsmanic
airplane.

Thank you for using the word "they."
You don't "move the airplane" to cover blind spots.

You've never lifted a wing to see under it before you turn?

I normally "cut the corner" from downwind to base in the pattern
precisely so that my wing doesn't block my view of the airport during
that portion of the flight. The idea that you don't move the airplane
for visibility is silly as a general rule.

I always drop the outside wing a bit on base to make sure that no nordo
is sneaking up on long straight-in final before I make the turn base to
final. Airport visibility on the turn to final is just fine, but my
wing is attached to the bottom of the plane :)

[Mike Ash]

Post by Jim

Post by Mike Ash

Post by Stephen!

Post by Alpha Propellerhead

Post by Mxsmanic
They move their heads, and, if necessary to cover blind spots, they
move

the

Post by Mxsmanic
airplane.

Thank you for using the word "they."
You don't "move the airplane" to cover blind spots.

You've never lifted a wing to see under it before you turn?

I normally "cut the corner" from downwind to base in the pattern
precisely so that my wing doesn't block my view of the airport during
that portion of the flight. The idea that you don't move the airplane
for visibility is silly as a general rule.

I always drop the outside wing a bit on base to make sure that no nordo
is sneaking up on long straight-in final before I make the turn base to
final. Airport visibility on the turn to final is just fine, but my
wing is attached to the bottom of the plane :)

My wing is on the "shoulder", basically right where my shoulder is. The
result is that I can't see below me beyond 90 degrees to the side. Which
is where the airport is for the last section of a standard downwind leg.
So I slice off that corner to keep the angle to the numbers at 90
degrees. Obviously, different aircraft will have different needs here.

[Stephen!]

Post by Jim
I always drop the outside wing a bit on base to make sure that no nordo
is sneaking up on long straight-in final before I make the turn base to
final. Airport visibility on the turn to final is just fine, but my
wing is attached to the bottom of the plane :)

Hehe... *Most* of my flying has been with high wing (Cessna, SGS)
aircraft. I do have many hours in low wing and rotating wing aircraft as
well so I guess I shoulda said, "Lift or lower the wing..."

:)

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Dave Doe
To be honest, your comment is just ridiculous and stupid. Real pilots
*do* maintain a procedurally based and trained lookout.

How do they manage to collide with tow planes and gliders, then?

[Mike Ash]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Loek
I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment. (I don't know
the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown reason.
Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of them.

True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other than
simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics, and in
this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.

It's trivial to imagine many other plausible explanations. The others
are not LIKELY, but there are tons of scenarios which are plausible.

Post by Mxsmanic
There's also the eerie coincidence of there being at least one other accident
with a Cirrus that happened pretty much exactly the same way, except that
there were survivors.

You have awfully low standards for eerieness. Two accidents happening
the same way that just happened to involve the same type of aircraft is
not eerie, it's just happenstance.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Mike Ash
It's trivial to imagine many other plausible explanations. The others
are not LIKELY, but there are tons of scenarios which are plausible.

Such as?

If they are not likely, why bother to imagine them? The purpose of an
accident investigation is to find the most probable cause for an accident, not
to find alternative but unlikely explanations that exonerate the pilot.

[Mike Ash]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Mike Ash
It's trivial to imagine many other plausible explanations. The others
are not LIKELY, but there are tons of scenarios which are plausible.

Such as?

Such as, Cirrus pilot had a heart attack thirty seconds before, Cirrus
had an engine failure, Cirrus hit large bird whose entrails covered the
forward view, etc.

Post by Mxsmanic
If they are not likely, why bother to imagine them? The purpose of an
accident investigation is to find the most probable cause for an accident, not
to find alternative but unlikely explanations that exonerate the pilot.

You said "plausible", not "relevant to the purpose of an accident
investigation".

Nice to see that you're still twisting out of every argument to make
yourself look good, but you forgot to do your usual excessive snipping
this time around.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Mike Ash
Such as, Cirrus pilot had a heart attack thirty seconds before, Cirrus
had an engine failure, Cirrus hit large bird whose entrails covered the
forward view, etc.

Possible, but not very probable. Why look for highly improbable explanations
when there is a very probable and plausible one (pilot error)?

[Mike Ash]

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Mike Ash
Such as, Cirrus pilot had a heart attack thirty seconds before, Cirrus
had an engine failure, Cirrus hit large bird whose entrails covered the
forward view, etc.

Possible, but not very probable. Why look for highly improbable explanations
when there is a very probable and plausible one (pilot error)?

Ah, there's that famous excessive snip.

You said "plausible", not "very probable". All of those scenarios are
plausible.

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Mike Ash
You said "plausible", not "very probable". All of those scenarios are
plausible.

Only one is probable: pilot error. If you believe it is something other than
pilot error, explain why. None of the information I've seen concerning this
crash implies any cause other than pilot error.

[romeomike]

Post by Mike Ash
Ah, there's that famous excessive snip.
You said "plausible", not "very probable". All of those scenarios are
plausible.

Now maybe you are beginning to answer your own question above as to why
Mx gets so much heat. I simply don't understand why anyone engages him
at all. Learned my lesson a few years back.

[Mike Ash]

Post by romeomike

Post by Mike Ash
Ah, there's that famous excessive snip.
You said "plausible", not "very probable". All of those scenarios are
plausible.

Now maybe you are beginning to answer your own question above as to why
Mx gets so much heat. I simply don't understand why anyone engages him
at all. Learned my lesson a few years back.

It's one thing to attack his evasion, quite another to pull your own
evasion and attack him for saying something completely reasonable.

[romeomike]

Post by Mike Ash

Post by romeomike

Post by Mike Ash
Ah, there's that famous excessive snip.
You said "plausible", not "very probable". All of those scenarios are
plausible.

Now maybe you are beginning to answer your own question above as to why
Mx gets so much heat. I simply don't understand why anyone engages him
at all. Learned my lesson a few years back.

It's one thing to attack his evasion, quite another to pull your own
evasion and attack him for saying something completely reasonable.

My observation over many years here is that when he posts something that
seems "reasonable" it's his way of subtly drawing people into an
escalating and frustrating attack and evade. It's not an educational to-
and-fro, just an exercise in "how far do I have to go to piss people off."

[Peter Dohm]

Post by romeomike

Post by Mike Ash

Post by romeomike

Post by Mike Ash
Ah, there's that famous excessive snip.
You said "plausible", not "very probable". All of those scenarios are
plausible.

Now maybe you are beginning to answer your own question above as to why
Mx gets so much heat. I simply don't understand why anyone engages him
at all. Learned my lesson a few years back.

It's one thing to attack his evasion, quite another to pull your own
evasion and attack him for saying something completely reasonable.

My observation over many years here is that when he posts something that
seems "reasonable" it's his way of subtly drawing people into an
escalating and frustrating attack and evade. It's not an educational to-
and-fro, just an exercise in "how far do I have to go to piss people off."

Very true. :-(

[Alpha Propellerhead]

Post by Mxsmanic
Possible, but not very probable. Why look for highly improbable explanations
when there is a very probable and plausible one (pilot error)?

The way I'd bet it goes is, unless the guy transmitted something to
suggest there was a problem or somebody saw the aircraft fail before
the collision, there's not going to be enough evidence to suggest
other theories. The investigators will settle on the simplest scenario
using by-the-book methods and since there were fatalities they'll
reconstruct their idea of what happened for training purposes.

If they want to assign blame rather than accept it, at the very least
they'll find him in violation of 14CFR 91.13 ("Careless or reckless
operation") and/or 91.113 (Right of Way.)

As for the Cirrus and your comment about collisions, having flown one
recently, I would consider the instrument panel rather than the
airplane itself. The Cirrus is nimble as hell and has great
visibility, but, the Garmin and Avidyne panels are so sexy they can be
mesmerizing. If fly the airplane by autopilot knob and heading bug,
you're more likely to be fixated on the panel rather than looking out
the window for your typical VFR awareness. A pilot could get into a
bad habit of flying low-altitude VFR as if it was IFR, where your eyes
are always on the panel.

-c
CFI

[Private]

Post by Mike Ash

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Mike Ash
It's trivial to imagine many other plausible explanations. The others
are not LIKELY, but there are tons of scenarios which are plausible.

Such as?

Such as, Cirrus pilot had a heart attack thirty seconds before, Cirrus
had an engine failure, Cirrus hit large bird whose entrails covered the
forward view, etc.

Post by Mxsmanic
If they are not likely, why bother to imagine them? The purpose of an
accident investigation is to find the most probable cause for an accident, not
to find alternative but unlikely explanations that exonerate the pilot.

You said "plausible", not "relevant to the purpose of an accident
investigation".
Nice to see that you're still twisting out of every argument to make
yourself look good, but you forgot to do your usual excessive snipping
this time around.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Mike,
Please don't feed the trolls.
It is similar to mud wrestling with pigs.
Real pilots accept that it is better to avoid bad weather rather than
attempt to change it.

Happy landings,

[Mike Ash]

Post by Private

Post by Mike Ash

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Mike Ash
It's trivial to imagine many other plausible explanations. The others
are not LIKELY, but there are tons of scenarios which are plausible.

Such as?

Such as, Cirrus pilot had a heart attack thirty seconds before, Cirrus
had an engine failure, Cirrus hit large bird whose entrails covered the
forward view, etc.

Post by Mxsmanic
If they are not likely, why bother to imagine them? The purpose of an
accident investigation is to find the most probable cause for an accident, not
to find alternative but unlikely explanations that exonerate the pilot.

You said "plausible", not "relevant to the purpose of an accident
investigation".
Nice to see that you're still twisting out of every argument to make
yourself look good, but you forgot to do your usual excessive snipping
this time around.

Mike,
Please don't feed the trolls.
It is similar to mud wrestling with pigs.
Real pilots accept that it is better to avoid bad weather rather than
attempt to change it.

I'm a glider pilot, so I get a lot of fun out of flying in what other
pilots would commonly consider to be "bad weather". Likewise, I'm just
having fun here, not attempting a serious discussion.

[Morgans]

Post by Mike Ash
Likewise, I'm just
having fun here, not attempting a serious discussion.

Ahh, the reason most often given why people engage a troll. As a result,
people that are attempting serious discussion leave by the bucket-fulls.

Really, man, engage him in private e-mail. Don't take a dump in our living
rooms.

[Mike Ash]

Post by Morgans

Post by Mike Ash
Likewise, I'm just
having fun here, not attempting a serious discussion.

Ahh, the reason most often given why people engage a troll. As a result,
people that are attempting serious discussion leave by the bucket-fulls.
Really, man, engage him in private e-mail. Don't take a dump in our living
rooms.

Funny, I see the cause and effect as backwards: only reason I'm
desperate enough to toy with the troll is because there's no legitimate
traffic going on.

[george]

Post by Mike Ash
Funny, I see the cause and effect as backwards: only reason I'm
desperate enough to toy with the troll is because there's no legitimate
traffic going on.

Notice how the on topic traffic has gone up and the kooks have
deserted the group...

Mixedup may be of some use after all

[Morgans]

"george" <***@hnpl.net> wrote

Notice how the on topic traffic has gone up and the kooks have
deserted the group...

Mixedup may be of some use after all
*****************************
You HAVE to be kidding. If not, ..... wow. wow.....
(shaking head while turning and walking away.)

[shywon]

Post by george
Notice how the on topic traffic has gone up and the kooks have
deserted the group...
Mixedup may be of some use after all
*****************************
You HAVE to be kidding.  If not, ..... wow.    wow.....
(shaking head while turning and walking away.)
--
Jim in NC

So, what was this post about before we all went off to wonderland?

[Mike Ash]

Post by george
Notice how the on topic traffic has gone up and the kooks have
deserted the group...
Mixedup may be of some use after all
*****************************
You HAVE to be kidding. If not, ..... wow. wow.....
(shaking head while turning and walking away.)

Honestly, I don't see the big problem with him.

Is MX irritating? Hell yes. Does he post misinformation with no
indication that he's not the expert he pretends to be? You bet. But he
at least makes posts *on the topic of aviation*.

You want to know who's destroying the group? It's Bertie and the others
who just go for full out, no-holds-barred insult fests. That's what made
me unsubscribe from rec.aviation.piloting, and that's what will make me
leave .student if it starts getting intolerable here.

I see nothing wrong with some on-topic discussion just because one of
the participants is a jerk with no sense of his own limitations. It is
possible to participate in a conversation with him without letting it
get out of control.

You want to save the group? Start some on-topic posts. This business
where the group sits idle for weeks, then an actual on-topic discussion
gets started and all the old-timers are yelling for it to stop because
it involves someone they don't like, is getting old.

I try to post interesting stories where I can. Being winter time with
bad weather, I don't have much to say at the moment, but I'll resume
when I can. Where are the on-topic posts from the rest of you?

[Morgans]

Post by Mike Ash
You want to know who's destroying the group? It's Bertie and the others
who just go for full out, no-holds-barred insult fests.

Without chum, sharks rarely go into a feeding frenzy, within sight of man.
So, why tolerate a feeding frenzy? Get rid of the chum's source.

Post by Mike Ash
I see nothing wrong with some on-topic discussion just because one of
the participants is a jerk with no sense of his own limitations. It is
possible to participate in a conversation with him without letting it
get out of control.

Really? Name one thread, where a discussion with him did not degenerate
into one of his famous bait and switch strategies, with all who engage going
ballistic from his rediculous tactics. He lives to argue topics that have
no natural argument. He will not listen to logic, or valid rebuttals to his
views, when it is all said and done. That sounds like out of control, to
me, and that is how every one of the threads he jumps into ends. (he jumps
into EVERY thread that has a good discussion going. EVERY one, EVERY time,
destroying the discussion in the process.)

Post by Mike Ash
You want to save the group? Start some on-topic posts.

Pretty hard, when so many have left out of frustration. Much of the
frustration comes from people continuing to support and enable trolls. If
he was ignored, the stupid posts from him would stop, people would come back
and stay, and many good on topic discussions would be taking place.

[romeomike]

That is a fact.

Morgans wrote:
Much of the

Post by Morgans
frustration comes from people continuing to support and enable trolls. If
he was ignored, the stupid posts from him would stop, people would come back
and stay, and many good on topic discussions would be taking place.

[Loek]

Dear Mx,

I just cannot agree with you. You're reasoning is a little too easy and I
get the impression it only serves the purpose of finger pointing an already
very dead person. (At least I think he is?) His family will be quite happy
with you. Again: you and I were not there so we can not and do not know what
happened exactly. Wild guesses are of no use at all but a healthy discussion
about possible causes is something different and even useful in a group like
this. Leave it to the very experienced and evenly qualified NTSB to find the
root cause of this tragic accident so we all can learn from it. And then we
can take measures to prevent an accident like this from happening again in
the future.

Cheers,

Loek

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Loek
I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment. (I don't know
the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown reason.
Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of them.

True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other than
simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics, and in
this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.
Even if something obstructed the pilot's view momentarily or his attention was
drawn elsewhere, it's still his fault, as he should have sufficient
situational awareness to know of the other aircraft without having to depend
on a fraction of a second of perception. What about radio calls? What about
traffic patterns? There are multiple ways in which he should have become aware
of the other aircraft.
Unless the surviving pilot and passengers from the glider can shed some
insight into this accident, we may never know what actually happened, but I
don't think it's unreasonable to assume pilot error until proven otherwise.
There's also the eerie coincidence of there being at least one other accident
with a Cirrus that happened pretty much exactly the same way, except that
there were survivors.

[Scien]

Post by Loek
Dear Mx,
I just cannot agree with you. You're reasoning is a little too easy and I
get the impression it only serves the purpose of finger pointing an already
very dead person. (At least I think he is?) His family will be quite happy
with you. Again: you and I were not there so we can not and do not know what
happened exactly. Wild guesses are of no use at all but a healthy discussion
about possible causes is something different and even useful in a group like
this. Leave it to the very experienced and evenly qualified NTSB to find the
root cause of this tragic accident so we all can learn from it. And then we
can take measures to prevent an accident like this from happening again in
the future.
Cheers,
Loek

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Loek
I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment.  (I don't
know
the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown reason.
Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of them.

True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other than
simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics, and in
this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.
Even if something obstructed the pilot's view momentarily or his attention was
drawn elsewhere, it's still his fault, as he should have sufficient
situational awareness to know of the other aircraft without having to depend
on a fraction of a second of perception. What about radio calls? What about
traffic patterns? There are multiple ways in which he should have become aware
of the other aircraft.
Unless the surviving pilot and passengers from the glider can shed some
insight into this accident, we may never know what actually happened, but I
don't think it's unreasonable to assume pilot error until proven otherwise.
There's also the eerie coincidence of there being at least one other accident
with a Cirrus that happened pretty much exactly the same way, except that
there were survivors.

Mx is intentionally trolling you. It is likely he doesn't even
believe half the things he says, he just knows it will prompt people
into argument with him, where he will claim to misunderstand your
views, and come up with hasty conclusions to prompt you guys to
continue the argument. He has done it time and time again. It is
best to just ignore him, although few actually do.

Most folks here are correct as usual. No one knows for sure what
happened, and the investigation isn't complete. It really doesn't
matter who is legally at fault, anyone involved in the accident could
have likely made moves to prevent it. The lesson as usual is to try
and be more aware of your surroundings. It doesn't matter if it was
pilot error or not. It doesn't matter who had the right of way. Only
that constant vigilance can help prevent you from being in the same
positions as any of these poor folks.

Also, I am not trying to be callous here. My thoughts go out to the
people affected by this accident. The above is just trying to say
that there is something to learn or a reminder here for the people
left behind. Finger pointing helps no one.

Regards,
Mike

[Loek]

I fully agree, Mike.

Yes, I know Mx some time and I know he loves to troll. But for some reason
this time I had to react. Fine, so he's had his share of fun for what that's
worth...

Cheers,

Loek

Post by Loek
Dear Mx,
I just cannot agree with you. You're reasoning is a little too easy and I
get the impression it only serves the purpose of finger pointing an already
very dead person. (At least I think he is?) His family will be quite happy
with you. Again: you and I were not there so we can not and do not know what
happened exactly. Wild guesses are of no use at all but a healthy discussion
about possible causes is something different and even useful in a group like
this. Leave it to the very experienced and evenly qualified NTSB to find the
root cause of this tragic accident so we all can learn from it. And then we
can take measures to prevent an accident like this from happening again in
the future.
Cheers,
Loek

Post by Mxsmanic

Post by Loek
I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment. (I don't
know
the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown reason.
Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of them.

True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other than
simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics, and in
this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.
Even if something obstructed the pilot's view momentarily or his
attention
was
drawn elsewhere, it's still his fault, as he should have sufficient
situational awareness to know of the other aircraft without having to depend
on a fraction of a second of perception. What about radio calls? What about
traffic patterns? There are multiple ways in which he should have become aware
of the other aircraft.
Unless the surviving pilot and passengers from the glider can shed some
insight into this accident, we may never know what actually happened,
but
I
don't think it's unreasonable to assume pilot error until proven otherwise.
There's also the eerie coincidence of there being at least one other accident
with a Cirrus that happened pretty much exactly the same way, except that
there were survivors.

Mx is intentionally trolling you. It is likely he doesn't even
believe half the things he says, he just knows it will prompt people
into argument with him, where he will claim to misunderstand your
views, and come up with hasty conclusions to prompt you guys to
continue the argument. He has done it time and time again. It is
best to just ignore him, although few actually do.

Most folks here are correct as usual. No one knows for sure what
happened, and the investigation isn't complete. It really doesn't
matter who is legally at fault, anyone involved in the accident could
have likely made moves to prevent it. The lesson as usual is to try
and be more aware of your surroundings. It doesn't matter if it was
pilot error or not. It doesn't matter who had the right of way. Only
that constant vigilance can help prevent you from being in the same
positions as any of these poor folks.

Also, I am not trying to be callous here. My thoughts go out to the
people affected by this accident. The above is just trying to say
that there is something to learn or a reminder here for the people
left behind. Finger pointing helps no one.

Regards,
Mike

[Mxsmanic]

Post by Loek
I just cannot agree with you. You're reasoning is a little too easy and I
get the impression it only serves the purpose of finger pointing an already
very dead person. (At least I think he is?) His family will be quite happy
with you. Again: you and I were not there so we can not and do not know what
happened exactly. Wild guesses are of no use at all but a healthy discussion
about possible causes is something different and even useful in a group like
this.

A wild guess would be one that is no more probable than any other. What is
improbable about this explanation? What other explanations are of greater or
equal probability?

Post by Loek
Leave it to the very experienced and evenly qualified NTSB to find the
root cause of this tragic accident so we all can learn from it. And then we
can take measures to prevent an accident like this from happening again in
the future.

I don't see any reason to suspend discussion of the accident until the NTSB
has finished with it.

[ManhattanMan]

Post by Mxsmanic
I don't see any reason to suspend discussion of the accident until the NTSB
has finished with it.

And I don't see any reason to continue a "discussion" with a
narcissistic, arrogant, conceited, neurotic, pious, prick that has cross
posted this "discussion" for his own gratification in his long
established trolling existence...

What happened Mx, get off the meds??

[Ian D]

"Mxsmanic" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
.

Post by Mxsmanic
Cirrus is the "fork-tailed doctor killer" of our era. The old V-tailed
Bonanzas tended to attract low-time, low-competence, high-income pilots, and
Cirrus aircraft are doing the same thing. I don't know if Beechcraft ever
deliberately tried to target that market as Cirrus is doing, though.

I remember that back in the mid 60s, Flying magazine had
an article on doctor involved accidents. At that time doctors,
as a group, were involved in about a third of all fatals in
private GA aircraft. A lot of these doctors were experienced
pilots, and the majority their accidents involved weather.

The conclusion as to why this was happening came down to
one word... arrogance. Being in the business of saving lives
these individuals felt that they could handle any situation.
Oh, and I seem to remember that Bonanzas were involved
in some of the incidents.

[Dudley Henriques]

Post by Ian D
.

Post by Mxsmanic
Cirrus is the "fork-tailed doctor killer" of our era. The old V-tailed
Bonanzas tended to attract low-time, low-competence, high-income pilots, and
Cirrus aircraft are doing the same thing. I don't know if Beechcraft ever
deliberately tried to target that market as Cirrus is doing, though.

I remember that back in the mid 60s, Flying magazine had
an article on doctor involved accidents.  At that time doctors,
as a group, were involved in about a third of all fatals in
private GA aircraft.  A lot of these doctors were experienced
pilots, and the majority their accidents involved weather.
The conclusion as to why this was happening came down to
one word... arrogance.  Being in the business of saving lives
these individuals felt that they could handle any situation.
Oh, and I seem to remember that Bonanzas were involved
in some of the incidents.

This is mostly true. I had many doctors and lawyers as students during
the Bonanza accident period.
In many there was indeed an arrogance, and coupled with their natural
desire to achieve a short time line on anything taught to them, many
had retention issues.
The real killer in the Bonanza craze wasn't arrogance per se but a
general lack of proper training in handing an airplane with a VERY
clean wing in instrument conditions. Many of the Bonanza crashes were
the result of pilots getting the aircraft into weather they couldn't
handle. The Bo, being extremely clean, was exceptionally capable of
getting nose low in turns. Many of the fatals involved pilots applying
back pressure when sensing a nose low condition instead of swallowing
the bank FIRST or SIMULTANEOUSLY, thus swallowing the bank before
applying a positive pitch input.
This VERY BASIC ERROR in a nose low condition just served to increase
the nose low condition. It didn't take the Bo long at all to reach Vne
and beyond. At that point many Bo's lost wings to the high g loads
that became available with the greatly increased airspeed.
The Bonanza was and is a fine airplane, but like any airplane,
especially with a slippery wing, on instruments you need to be VERY
careful when recovering from a nose low condition. Arrogance and lack
of basics in a Bonanza nose low on the clocks was a killer equation!
Dudley Henriques

[Peter Dohm]

news:903eb1bf-9d81-4282-8979-
This is mostly true. I had many doctors and lawyers as students during
the Bonanza accident period.
In many there was indeed an arrogance, and coupled with their natural
desire to achieve a short time line on anything taught to them, many
had retention issues.
The real killer in the Bonanza craze wasn't arrogance per se but a
general lack of proper training in handing an airplane with a VERY
clean wing in instrument conditions. Many of the Bonanza crashes were
the result of pilots getting the aircraft into weather they couldn't
handle. The Bo, being extremely clean, was exceptionally capable of
getting nose low in turns. Many of the fatals involved pilots applying
back pressure when sensing a nose low condition instead of swallowing
the bank FIRST or SIMULTANEOUSLY, thus swallowing the bank before
applying a positive pitch input.
This VERY BASIC ERROR in a nose low condition just served to increase
the nose low condition. It didn't take the Bo long at all to reach Vne
and beyond. At that point many Bo's lost wings to the high g loads
that became available with the greatly increased airspeed.
The Bonanza was and is a fine airplane, but like any airplane,
especially with a slippery wing, on instruments you need to be VERY
careful when recovering from a nose low condition. Arrogance and lack
of basics in a Bonanza nose low on the clocks was a killer equation!
Dudley Henriques

I wonder if the quickest, safest and least costly solution to a similar
problem might be a couple of hours of glider instruction--and a glider of
medium performance or greater.

Admittedly, this is advocacy above my own experience; but it is the first
place (other than a true-motion sim) that I would look for my own use. And
besides, that glider intro flight was a lot of fun!

Peter

[Dudley Henriques]

Post by Peter Dohm

news:903eb1bf-9d81-4282-8979-
This is mostly true. I had many doctors and lawyers as students during
the Bonanza accident period.
In many there was indeed an arrogance, and coupled with their natural
desire to achieve a short time line on anything taught to them, many
had retention issues.
The real killer in the Bonanza craze wasn't arrogance per se but a
general lack of proper training in handing an airplane with a VERY
clean wing in instrument conditions. Many of the Bonanza crashes were
the result of pilots getting the aircraft into weather they couldn't
handle. The Bo, being extremely clean, was exceptionally capable of
getting nose low in turns. Many of the fatals involved pilots applying
back pressure when sensing a nose low condition instead of swallowing
the bank FIRST or SIMULTANEOUSLY, thus swallowing the bank before
applying a positive pitch input.
This VERY BASIC ERROR in a nose low condition just served to increase
the nose low condition. It didn't take the Bo long at all to reach Vne
and beyond. At that point many Bo's lost wings to the high g loads
that became available with the greatly increased airspeed.
The Bonanza was and is a fine airplane, but like any airplane,
especially with a slippery wing, on instruments you need to be VERY
careful when recovering from a nose low condition. Arrogance and lack
of basics in a Bonanza nose low on the clocks was a killer equation!
Dudley Henriques

I wonder if the quickest, safest and least costly solution to a similar
problem might be a couple of hours of glider instruction--and a glider of
medium performance or greater.
Admittedly, this is advocacy above my own experience; but it is the first
place (other than a true-motion sim) that I would look for my own use.  And
besides, that glider intro flight was a lot of fun!
Peter

news:903eb1bf-9d81-4282-8979-
This is mostly true. I had many doctors and lawyers as students during
the Bonanza accident period.
In many there was indeed an arrogance, and coupled with their natural
desire to achieve a short time line on anything taught to them, many
had retention issues.
The real killer in the Bonanza craze wasn't arrogance per se but a
general lack of proper training in handing an airplane with a VERY
clean wing in instrument conditions. Many of the Bonanza crashes were
the result of pilots getting the aircraft into weather they couldn't
handle. The Bo, being extremely clean, was exceptionally capable of
getting nose low in turns. Many of the fatals involved pilots applying
back pressure when sensing a nose low condition instead of swallowing
the bank FIRST or SIMULTANEOUSLY, thus swallowing the bank before
applying a positive pitch input.
This VERY BASIC ERROR in a nose low condition just served to increase
the nose low condition. It didn't take the Bo long at all to reach Vne
and beyond. At that point many Bo's lost wings to the high g loads
that became available with the greatly increased airspeed.
The Bonanza was and is a fine airplane, but like any airplane,
especially with a slippery wing, on instruments you need to be VERY
careful when recovering from a nose low condition. Arrogance and lack
of basics in a Bonanza nose low on the clocks was a killer equation!
Dudley Henriques

I wonder if the quickest, safest and least costly solution to a similar
problem might be a couple of hours of glider instruction--and a glider of
medium performance or greater.
Admittedly, this is advocacy above my own experience; but it is the first
place (other than a true-motion sim) that I would look for my own use. And
besides, that glider intro flight was a lot of fun!
Peter

I've always advocated glider instruction as a positive factor for any
pilot in a total training regimen. There is no doubt that glider
training can contribute to a better overall powered pilot flying a
powered aircraft. Along the same line of reasoning, aerobatics is of
immeasurable benefit in increasing basic skill sets to higher levels.
The bottom line in any training regimen involves not only the material
covered but how the time is spent by both the instructor and the
student as they interface together to form the teacher/student
equation.
If I had to pinpoint a single attribute to be the most important a
pilot could posses exiting a training program it would be the
acquirement of a sound sense of professional judgment coupled with
good basic flying skills.
In many of the Bonanza crashes, this factor unfortunately didn't seem
to be present.
DH

[Bug Dout]

Post by Ian D
The conclusion as to why this was happening came down to
one word... arrogance. Being in the business of saving lives
these individuals felt that they could handle any situation.

Last summer a doctor I and many others knew stalled a C150 at Lake Tahoe
and killed himself. Arrogrance would be an understatement for that
fellow. And yes, a friend who knew him better than me said the doc
expressed that: he had cheated death on the operating table often, he
could cheat it in the air.

[Mike Ash]

Post by Bug Dout

Post by Ian D
The conclusion as to why this was happening came down to
one word... arrogance. Being in the business of saving lives
these individuals felt that they could handle any situation.

Last summer a doctor I and many others knew stalled a C150 at Lake Tahoe
and killed himself. Arrogrance would be an understatement for that
fellow. And yes, a friend who knew him better than me said the doc
expressed that: he had cheated death on the operating table often, he
could cheat it in the air.

I can certainly see where, being a doctor, flying might seem easy by
comparison and might not get the respect it deserves. The basic training
certainly is easier, just compare the amount of time you need to
dedicate to getting, say, a PPL with the amount of time needed for
medical school. But just because it's easy to learn the basics doesn't
mean you can treat it without respect....