Crash at CYKZ May 25 2010

[Hedley]

I had practiced this maneuver several times before and that is probably what saved my bacon

This is worth re-reading.

If IFP or I - or anyone else who bothers to learn the "impossible turn" - have an EFATO at 400+ AGL in a single, we're going to safely make it back to the runway.

A friend of mine did it for real in a Harvard not too long ago, so you don't have to be Bob Hoover to do it.

This particular skill isn't much different from learning to land a tailwheel aircraft, or learning to fly an aileron roll, or learning to fly in cloud on the gauges.

If you practice it, you can do it. If you don't practice it, well, it's probably not going to work out for you, if you try to teach yourself to do it in a hurry.

You probably don't want to know my procedure for an EFATO in a piston twin, either

[2775PSI]

I PC12 guy was telling me they're taught how to do the impossible turn from 800' in the sim.

[robbreid]

Condolences to family and friends of those involved.

Family statement.

On this day, the Holly’s Pride family would like to inform you of a tragedy affecting us all. Paul Jess co-owner of Holly’s Pride, Hotel for Pets in Burlington & Ancaster has suffered a tragic and fatal accident.

At this time, the family has asked that their privacy be respected. We would like to thank everyone for their thoughts and prayers. Rest assured both the Burlington & Ancaster locations will continue to serve our customers during this time or great sorrow.

Amanda Fraser
General Manager

[Shiny Side Up]

I must say I hate where this discussion has went as we always ineveitably come back to it when something of this nature happens.

+1 to everything you have said here. Landing straight ahead after engine failure should be drilled into every student's head - that is the only way to make it an automatic response. The question is: why do people keep doing this?

To answer, here it is.

I would have to agree with Hedley. It is more than possible to turn at about 500' but you have to be very skilled and experienced single engine pilot (instructor) and you have to know your airplane very well.

I personally have demonstrated the "impossible" turn numerous times from 400 AGL in a 172. Like anything else in an aircraft, if you don't practice it, you haven't developed the skill to do it, so don't do it.

I did it very fast, but here is a bit of math somehow proving Hedley's point (again, not saying it is recommended to turn back to the runway, but just to show it is possible): ...

I have done the impossible turn in real life and I am still here. I was at 400 feet when the engine lost all power (was still turning over) and I managed to land it on the same 3000 foot runway I just took off from. All the plane needed to be repaired was a new fuel injection system.

There you have it. There's ample testimony out there that the correct thing to do in this instance isn't maybe what your flight instructor has taught you, but what other experienced pilots have done. I'm not going to say its impossible to pull off, hell I won't even say its difficult if you know what you're doing. You wonder why people continue to do it though and here it is - there's ample pressure out there telling them they can. You aren't a good pilot if you can't pull off this manuever - who here doesn't think that they are a good pilot?

Something that usually isn't explored when we talk about this subject though is how people react to emergency situations. I will say from experience that people on average don't react well to them. Many freeze, go through that bit of denial, others panic, some go blank. I should say that even with many experienced pilots out there (guys who are in the 500 - 2000 hour range) that even the better skilled ones usually take a few seconds to get into response mode when something goes wrong - even when they're forewarned of the simulated emergency occuring. Regardless of practice, its often unpredictable how individuals respond in actual emergencies, practice only mitigates this to a greater or lesser degree...

You people don't need me to tell you this though.

A question to ask though:

Will the airplane make it back on every loss of power failure in the climb out segment?

If so, why didn't Captain Sully turn back? Was he simply not practiced enough?

[Big Pistons Forever]

I would like to echo Shiny's comments. The accident record is unambigous, in real world situations most pilots do not do well after an EFATO, many lose control of the aircraft and die attempting a turnback. The accident stats show that if you crash in a wings level nose level attitude you will probably walk away from the crash, but if you hit the ground steeply banked and with a very nose low attitude you will probably die. Gliding more or less straight after that low level powerr failure will probably result in the first scenario, but screw up the turn back and you very likely to get the second possibility.

The issue I have with the turn back has to do with the fact that it can not be realistically practiced. Doing the turn back manoever at 3000 ft means nothing because you are missing the extremely powerfull sight of a windshield full of ground half way through the turn. The urge to pull hard back on the yoke will be almost irresistable unless you have plenty of existing experience manoevering close to the ground. Therefore unless you have a low level aerobatics rating (hedley) extensive low level survey/telemetry experience (pie) or many years birddogging/firebombing (me) or other types of flying that requires you to regularly manoever at high bank angles very close to the ground, IMO you are missing an essential piece of experience necessary to be able to do the turn back manoever successfully every time, understanding the penalty for failure is often death. Lacking this experience has nothing to do with an individuals flying skills or ability, but should IMO shape their response to how they handle this (very rare) emergency.

[iflyforpie]

I do want to clarify that what I did worked in my circumstances, but won't always work. I was just saying that it is possible under a fairly wide range of circumstances to counter the people who say it is absolutely impossible to do under real (not simulated) circumstances.

I have found that with a good wind blowing down the pipe, you will overshoot even if you manage to complete the turns in time--there is no altitude to increase track miles and slipping will take what little altitude you have for maneuvering away. With a slight tail wind, it does not take much to undershoot even a fairly long (6000') runway. Cross wind? Which way are you going to turn? Most pilots turn left which is a disaster in the case of a right crosswind.

How loaded is the aircraft? Glide ratio stays the same but turn radius doesn't, so that means more track miles (or track feet) to perform the maneuver if you are heavier (I will often reduce the POH speeds to reflect the weight at which I am operating). What kind of airfoil and flap system do you have? I was blessed with a Cessna 2412 with a Sportsman STOL and Fowler Flaps. The Laminar flow airfoil on Beechcraft and tin Piper products; and the Wortmann on Cirrus are not as forgiving at low airspeeds. The higher stall speed of the Cirrus would be a huge liability in performing this maneuver, as well as during the crash.

I am a big believer in Emergency Maneuvers Training. My former employer provided all line pilots this training free of charge and is probably a big reason why I am writing this today. I think that most pilots would be better equipped for any kind of emergency with this type of training, including choosing to bite the bullet and keep the aircraft straight.

[RatherBeFlying]

Glider students are given simulated rope breaks at 300' before solo and I hear that the Air Cadets do them from 200'. In a glider the turnback is viable from 300'.

The drill in gliders is to get the nose down and see 55kt. on the airspeed before banking.

Doing that from 400' in a C-172 I'll leave to Hedley. There's higher airspeed, wider turn radius, way higher sink rate (800'/min vs. 120'/min) plus the dubious joys of a downwind landing that might not be on the runway.

[YOWza]

All this assumes the pilot wasn't incapacitated from the smoke of an electrical fire.

[gustind]

The privately-operated 1787511 Ontario Inc. Cirrus SR 20 aircraft was on a VFR flight from Toronto (Buttonville) Municipal Airport (CYKZ) to Burlington Airpark (CZBA). Shortly after departing runway 15 the pilot reported a problem and commenced a left turn appearing to try to return to the airport to land. Smoke was clearly visible coming from the engine. The aircraft crashed on a rooftop on nearby building and broke out on fire a few moments later. Fire equipment was dispatched. No response from aircraft to repeated calls from tower.

[Sulako]

A guy who came over to our house tonight was friends with the deceased. He said the pax was a new lady-friend, and that the plane had a history of mechanical problems. He said the same thing I have heard, that the pilot attempted a low-altitude return 180, and that the plane was a whole lot of airplane for the pilot to handle on a regular basis. Keep in mind this is third-hand info.

[mag check]

the plane had a history of mechanical problems.

I have yet to see a cirrus that did not have a long history of problems. I know an owner that has spent the purchase price of the aircraft in maintainance costs in the first few years of ownership.
IMO it is a very poorly put together aircraft, and judging by what is left after this crash, I certainly wouldn't want to be in one at impact.

I've seen quite a few fiberglass boats burn, and that is enough to convince me that I don't want any part of flying in a fiberglass aircraft.

So sad, you have to wonder if he was in a 182 rg, (that does everything that the cirrus does, and lots more), they may have survived.

[just like flying]

The Cirrus is a nice airplane for flying from one long runway to another long runway with no obsticals on approach. The fancy avionics, slick looks and fast speeds are attractive to those who like flashy, new, high tech stuff. These things, along with the parachute make for a good selling points to executives with big bucks to spend on planes, but if you read the POH and complete the Cirrus training program, you will learn that the chute is only good if you are 2000'+ agl.
I took their training to become qualified as a "Cirrus Certified Instructor" and pulled the chute in the simulator and you need ALTITUDE for the chute to deploy and set the plane up for a safe touch down.
First you shut down the engine and slow your airspeed, then you pull the chute (I needed to use both hands to do this).
The fusalage behind the back window blows off when the rocket deploys and pulls the chute out.
The plane will then pitch sever nose down and slowly level off as the chute deploys and the ropes from the chute level the plane.
Once the chute is fully deployed, the plane is in a level attitude and will float to the ground. When it touches down (or drops) the impact is equal to dropping from about 15' agl (very bad flare...) and the seats are designed to absorbe that impact and help cushion the occupants spine from compressing.
You have no directional control where the airplane "floats" once the chute is deployed to you are at the mercy of the wind and have no choice for landing location.
The plane WILL be damaged and WILL require extensive body work before you can fly it again, regardless of where you "land" as the chute will damage the fusalage, BUT the landing impact will be survivable. (thus the selling feature to execs) Falling from the trees when exiting the plane, freezing on the side of a mountain or waiting for rescue may not be...

In general the design/concept of the chute is good, but you must have ALTITUDE for the chute to work! Pulling it at low level is suicide!

The planes (both the SR20 & SR22) are slippery and fast with high stall speeds and can be unforgiving if you are behind the plane, which is really easy to do if your a low time, inexpereicend pilot. I don't recommend this plane for initial training nor for low time pilots, especially for those who fly into short strips (less than 3000' long), especially those with obstical approaches.
They are nice cross country planes for expereinced pilots, but IMHO that's about all they are good for.

[robbreid]

Update on pilot and passenger . . .

http://www.thekathrynreport.com/2010/05 ... crash.html

[lionheart27]

Interesting how the headline says Cirrus but the article says Cessna?
First- RIP to the pilot and passenger as this is respectful.

If it was a SR20 that one does not have the chute system as with the SR22 or is it an option that was made available after the SR22 came out? Expensive upgrade!

This makes me wonder as to engine failures on t/o that a chute deployed system is irrelevant because of the low altitude. Hey its not a ejection seat. There's a video of the guy who was caught by the banner tow cable and deployed his chute and I believe he was only about 2000' or more. What matters is that the chute is only as good as takes for it to deploy. Hence a chute for a 200lb man is safer than a chute for a 2000lb plane. Yes we consider the danger that the A/C will cause to where it lands and danger to life and property but our first instincts are survival.

Hence, what were this pilots skills, hours on plane, decision making and emergency procedures training.
If this were a Cessna high wing A/C this may have been "Survivable" when the stability is more pronounced.
Interesting how the European Aviation Safety Agency gave this A/C a certificate for importation into the European Union when its safety history is checkered. The 2007 model SR20 has the upgraded SR22 design but still apparently no chute standard.
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20
This article details alot more on what limitations and experience is needed to fly this bird. It mentions experience is key but markets it to rich corporate folks with speed and efficency.
It sounds like a novice or beginner pilot should get more experience to be ahead of this A/C unlike the more friendly recoverable models.

[JigglyBus]

What makes you think that chutes aren't standard on SR20's?

[mst01]

I am NOT attempting to speculate, but I do want to say.. Please, if you ever are unfortunate enough to have an engine failure in a single engine plane..please RESIST the temptation to try to turn back. Your stall speed increases dramatically in an engine out steep turn and you will NOT make it. They end up spirilling in every time. Its our automatic response to want to turn back to (safety), but Im pleading with ppl to resist the temptation and just drive it in. At least then, you have a shot..slim, but a shot.

Again, my sincere condolences to the family.

+1 to everything you have said here. Landing straight ahead after engine failure should be drilled into every student's head - that is the only way to make it an automatic response. The question is: why do people keep doing this?.

Of course turning back without sufficient altitude is not a good idea, but landing straight ahead after take off from CYKZ's rwy 15, doesn't look very appealing either

I've only flown into CYKZ a couple of times, so I'm not real familiar with the area, a quick look at Google earth, doesn't present very many options south of the field.

For anybody here who flies there / trains there, what is the briefing / plan ?

Would you consider trying to land on Woodbine Ave? (and hope that cars would get out of your way?)

The apparent lack of open spaces / fields, may have led to the decision to attempt the turn-around.

[gustind]

For anybody here who flies there / trains there, what is the briefing / plan ?

Would you consider trying to land on Woodbine Ave? (and hope that cars would get out of your way?)

The apparent lack of open spaces / fields, may have led to the decision to attempt the turn-around.

You always brief to yourself something plus or minus 30 degrees. However with sufficient altitude your best bet is the 407 or the ramp from 404 to the 407 going westbound. Woodbine has lots of dips and hills here and there but south of Hwy 7 it is actually pretty o.k. with the flow of traffic the majority of time however the 407 is a much better bet (at least I brief it when I t/o 15 and 21).

Off of 33 you have some fields north of the airport on the west side of the 404 which is actually ok. Runway 03 is not the greatest because the departure path is right into a residential neighborhood however there is one field north of the airport along woodbine (N/S) which would suffice. Not saying you would stop in the length of the field but it's a place for an engine failure.

Hope it sheds some light.

[albertdesalvo]

best bet is the 407

Yeah, that sounds like a plan, just plunk 'er down ahead of that cement truck doing 120 km/hr, the driver should have no problem avoiding you, 0.5 second reaction time is plenty, right? Geez!!

[wirez]

best bet is the 407

Yeah, that sounds like a plan, just plunk 'er down ahead of that cement truck doing 120 km/hr, the driver should have no problem avoiding you, 0.5 second reaction time is plenty, right? Geez!!

There really aren't any great options off Runway 15. Last engine failure I remember out of YKZ RWY 15 in 2003 ended up in IBM with only minor injuries. I'd have to agree with gustind about the 407 being the best option.

[albertdesalvo]

At 4am you'd probably get away with it. At 4pm, I don't like your chances. If that's the best option, I'd hate to consider the worst one.

[niss]

At 4am you'd probably get away with it. At 4pm, I don't like your chances. If that's the best option, I'd hate to consider the worst one.

Plus my a/c doesn't have the 407 xpdr, I would hate to think about the charges I would get dinged for using their highway.

[mag check]

At 4am you'd probably get away with it. At 4pm, I don't like your chances. If that's the best option, I'd hate to consider the worst one.

No one said you have to land on the road. The ditches on the 407 are VERY wide, and would provide a safe area to put it down, although with some damage. I would rather tear off the wings, and skid through the ditch than risk others out on the highway.

[Gogona]

If it's your first time at any particular aerodrome, you can note suitable sites as you approach for landing, or, if you have time on your hands, check satellite imagery from Google Maps...seriously, it's a great tool.

That's definitely perfect idea, but!
When I learned about this crash, my very first thought was: "It seems, that the pilot tried to take the plane away from residential houses. He was experienced enough to do such a primitive mistake"

So now, check the imagery around the airport on Google Maps. You can see, there is absolutely no suitable site for landing if you are taking off from rwy15 – large area in front of you is fully built-up. The only one thing you can do – just think about people on the ground below you... Alas and alack.

[AEROBAT]

At 4am you'd probably get away with it. At 4pm, I don't like your chances. If that's the best option, I'd hate to consider the worst one.

No one said you have to land on the road. The ditches on the 407 are VERY wide, and would provide a safe area to put it down, although with some damage. I would rather tear off the wings, and skid through the ditch than risk others out on the highway.

Powerlines are a bigger threat than traffic when landing on highways, I agree though if there are wide ditches go for it. One thing to keep in mind if you do land on a road...roads are built with a crown on them to shed water unlike runways which are much flatter. Once you touch down stay in the center. If you drift off to either side your tailwheel wants to go into the ditch.

[into the blue]

Gogona, you are obviously correct about the lack of options for Rwy 15 at CYKZ, especially for an airplane like Cirrus SR20. Cases where there are no adequate places to land in the event of an engine failure after TO are not that uncommon . All I was trying to say is that it's better to study your options (or the lack of such) in a comfortable, relaxed setting, than hope you will be able to come up with a great momentary solution while the the altimeter hand is cruelly turning counter-clockwise with only a couple hundred feet to spare. Knowing the "big picture" in advance can definitely help you manage the risk better. For instance, it could be as simple as requesting a different runway for departure: one or two knots of tailwind may actually put you in a much safer position. But again, every case is different.