Cirrus IFR Approach KCLT

[upup_away]

Occurrence No A16F0009:

C-GXXJ, a Cirrus SR22 aircraft, was performing an instrument approach to Runway 36R at Charlotte/Douglas Intl, NC (KCLT). ATC instructed the pilot to go around and to fly to Concord Regional, NC (KJQF) to conduct the RNAV RWY 02 approach. The pilot prepared for the approach to Runway 20 (as opposed to Runway 02 as instructed by ATC). At some point during the approach, ATC informed the pilot that the aircraft was too low and needed to climb. The aircraft chute was pulled and the aircraft settled on the ground resulting in substantial damage. The pilot and passenger were uninjured.

[digits_]

Pulling a chute is just an occurence ?

Oh boy. They should rewrite all the approach plates: missed approach : pull chute . It actually will be dangerous to live around airports in the future...

[pelmet]

More detail here...

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2016/01/c ... urred.html

ATC recording here...was low on fuel. Best to follow along with the chronology along with the tower link at the bottom of the page until 13:10 then go to the approach link about 25% down the page and start at around 13 minutes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/0 ... nt/423420/

[5x5]

The pilot prepared for the approach to Runway 20 (as opposed to Runway 02 as instructed by ATC).

Not condoning the mistake in any way, buuuut, in the States they use Runway 2 (not 02) so maybe easier to make that mistake with 20, but not really as anyone flying in the States should know these type of differences.

I'm sure not a fan of chutes. I don't like the cost they add to already expensive enough aircraft and they aren't necessary. Plus, if they do in fact get people into the air that wouldn't otherwise, I'm not convinced that's a good thing. In my mind pilots need to be confident enough to deal with all situations they might encounter in the air and if they won't fly unless they have a "save me" lever, what other shit are they screwing up (ergo this story).

[Rookie50]

Hmmmm. Listned to it --- learning experience for others, without passing any judgement. Glad they were Ok in the end.

But a lot of question marks.

Did he mistake minutes and gallons, for one.

[donnybrook]

5x5 is there a website to explain the differences between flying in the USA vs Canada? I have been looking but can't seem to find anything definitive. Thanks...

[lhalliday]

5x5 is there a website to explain the differences between flying in the USA vs Canada? I have been looking but can't seem to find anything definitive. Thanks...

Why not start a thread here and see what you get?

I've flown in Seattle (from Langley, i.e. Customs and all that), Dallas and Northern California myself. There is lots out there on flying privately across the border. Once you're there it's not all that different from flying in Canada. My main reference has been Guido Warnecke's videos on YouTube.

...laura

[upup_away]

Thanks pelmet, some great information there.

[5x5]

5x5 is there a website to explain the differences between flying in the USA vs Canada? I have been looking but can't seem to find anything definitive. Thanks...

Here's a link with some info. I can't vouch for it as I haven't looked at it other than a glance - http://www.copa70.com/CrossBorderFlying.pdf - but it seems fairly comprehensive. One thing to note is that the 122.0 frequency they reference for Flight Watch in the States is no longer active.

Also check with local schools as they may have info and guidance that they share with students and renters.

[pelmet]

It amazes me that the controller had been told that there is only 17 minutes of fuel left yet he tells the pilot that he can't do an ILS into Charlotte which is right nearby. He should have been declaring the emergency for the pilot at that time(they can do that). That action may end up being a contributing cause of the accident because even though the pilot changes it to a hour's worth of fuel, we will see in the investigation if his updated estimate of 1 hour fuel remaining was accurate. After all, he may very well have pulled the chute about 15 minutes later when his engine lost power.

I am not sure what the wind was but the ILS for the diversion airport seems like it would be a better option initially because it is typically easier to program in these technically advanced aircraft and fly for any aircraft and has the lower minimums(official ceiling was 500 feet). The runway is quite long if there was a significant tailwind.

I assume the pilot either went around on the GPS approach because of the higher minimums on the approach and couldn't get visual or quite possibly screwed up the approach(the controller did say that he was off course at an earlier point during the GPS approach). I have some Cirrus time and usually these non-precision approaches require more skill to input and fly. If you are not quite current, it can be easy to screw it up especially when you are tight for time and under a lot of stress. If you are tight on fuel, it may just make sense to fly the easier approach to lower minimums. It is a tough call if you are tight on fuel and the ILS is on the far side of the airport. But at that point he was saying something like 45 minutes fuel(But I'm sure the gauges were quite low).

If he did pull the chute due to a power loss, I would say that this was a good decision. It almost guarantees survival and lesser injuries. And with a 500 foot ceiling(and perhaps lower) it may very well be too late to make that decision once clear of cloud. Or maybe it was at night.

[digits_]

It amazes me that the controller had been told that there is only 17 minutes of fuel left yet he tells the pilot that he can't do an ILS into Charlotte which is right nearby.

What was the reason that he couldn't do an ILS in charlotte ?

[CpnCrunch]

I'm sure not a fan of chutes. I don't like the cost they add to already expensive enough aircraft and they aren't necessary. Plus, if they do in fact get people into the air that wouldn't otherwise, I'm not convinced that's a good thing. In my mind pilots need to be confident enough to deal with all situations they might encounter in the air and if they won't fly unless they have a "save me" lever, what other shit are they screwing up (ergo this story).

There are plenty of people without chutes who get themselves into trouble and end up killing themselves. The guy who completely screwed up the approach at Tofino and ploughed into the ground a year or two ago comes to mind.

[donnybrook]

Thanks for the references!

[pelmet]

It amazes me that the controller had been told that there is only 17 minutes of fuel left yet he tells the pilot that he can't do an ILS into Charlotte which is right nearby.

What was the reason that he couldn't do an ILS in charlotte ?

He went off course on his first attempt. Tower tells him to go-around. He says that he is visual but tower says that he must go around so he does. The airport appears to be quite busy at the time. I assume that they didn't want him around because he had caused problems on his initial approach so the subsequent controller told him that he was aware of the pilots statement of only 17 minutes of fuel left but that he couldn't do another approach into Charlotte.

[digits_]

It amazes me that the controller had been told that there is only 17 minutes of fuel left yet he tells the pilot that he can't do an ILS into Charlotte which is right nearby.

What was the reason that he couldn't do an ILS in charlotte ?

He went off course on his first attempt. Tower tells him to go-around. He says that he is visual but tower says that he must go around so he does. The airport appears to be quite busy at the time. I assume that they didn't want him around because he had caused problems on his initial approach so the subsequent controller told him that he was aware of the pilots statement of only 17 minutes of fuel left but that he couldn't do another approach into Charlotte.

Huh, that is weird. Curious to read the incident report. If there ever will be one, as it is just an "occurence"

[Rookie50]

FWIW I know a friend who knows this pilot, attests he is current and cautious. There is some possibility, of course just second hand conjecture, of some sort of instrumentation issue screwing up the approaches, that perhaps he wasn't immediately aware of.

As far as Kclt, those Class B airports can be pretty short if one can't safely fit In the traffic pattern, and concord was right there.

[pelmet]

FWIW I know a friend who knows this pilot, attests he is current and cautious. There is some possibility, of course just second hand conjecture, of some sort of instrumentation issue screwing up the approaches, that perhaps he wasn't immediately aware of.

As far as Kclt, those Class B airports can be pretty short if one can't safely fit In the traffic pattern, and concord was right there.

Concord Airport appears to be about 15 miles from KCLT.

[Rookie50]

FWIW I know a friend who knows this pilot, attests he is current and cautious. There is some possibility, of course just second hand conjecture, of some sort of instrumentation issue screwing up the approaches, that perhaps he wasn't immediately aware of.

As far as Kclt, those Class B airports can be pretty short if one can't safely fit In the traffic pattern, and concord was right there.

Concord Airport appears to be about 15 miles from KCLT.

Looking at the chart, an overshoot off 36R for KCLT, it's actually appears far closer to proceed to the IAF for runway 2 at concord that return to set up into the sequence for another attempt at KCLT. Sounds reasonable what the controller recommended to a pilot having an (unknown) issue and limited fuel, at Concord he would have no pressure from other traffic and a long runway. Ceiling was 500 so a big factor...

[pelmet]

FWIW I know a friend who knows this pilot, attests he is current and cautious. There is some possibility, of course just second hand conjecture, of some sort of instrumentation issue screwing up the approaches, that perhaps he wasn't immediately aware of.

As far as Kclt, those Class B airports can be pretty short if one can't safely fit In the traffic pattern, and concord was right there.

Concord Airport appears to be about 15 miles from KCLT.

Looking at the chart, an overshoot off 36R for KCLT, it's actually appears far closer to proceed to the IAF for runway 2 at concord that return to set up into the sequence for another attempt at KCLT. Sounds reasonable what the controller recommended to a pilot having an (unknown) issue and limited fuel, at Concord he would have no pressure from other traffic and a long runway. Ceiling was 500 so a big factor...

Don't know for sure what his distance from CLT on initial contact but he had been told to turn east immediately by tower. Non-LPV minimums for the GPS on 02 are slightly higher than 500 feet, in other words, it was likely at or below minimums and weather can change or be old. Meanwhile he was likely within 5 miles of CLT to the east. If I were the controller, I would move traffic out of the way so he has no traffic and sequence him as #1 with two right turns and 200 foot minimums and known reasonable weather. He may very well have done the missed at Concord due to the weather.

[ahramin]

at Concord he would have no pressure from other traffic

If you are low on fuel there is no traffic pressure. Fuel awareness is a necessary skill for pilots, and if you get to the point where fuel remaining - fuel burn until landing leaves you with less than 30 minutes fuel = "Pan pan pan pan pan pan c-fabc low on fuel request vectors for ils rwxx / weather cyxx / whatever you need, 40 minutes fuel remaining."

[Rookie50]

Looking at the chart, an overshoot off 36R for KCLT, it's actually appears far closer to proceed to the IAF for runway 2 at concord that return to set up into the sequence for another attempt at KCLT. Sounds reasonable what the controller recommended to a pilot having an (unknown) issue and limited fuel, at Concord he would have no pressure from other traffic and a long runway. Ceiling was 500 so a big factor...[/quote]


Don't know for sure what his distance from CLT on initial contact but he had been told to turn east immediately by tower. Non-LPV minimums for the GPS on 02 are slightly higher than 500 feet, in other words, it was likely at or below minimums and weather can change or be old. Meanwhile he was likely within 5 miles of CLT to the east. If I were the controller, I would move traffic out of the way so he has no traffic and sequence him as #1 with two right turns and 200 foot minimums and known reasonable weather. He may very well have done the missed at Concord due to the weather.[/quote]

Good point I've assumed he had WAAS but Im not positive on that. MY thought off overshoot to KCLT is controller might assume a pilot having unknown difficulty -- he wandered on first approach -- would need plenty of space to set up. Than might mean 10 miles back to IAF behind him, and 7-8 mile final, much longer than to Concord. Perhaps could have been more assertive, both sides in resolving.

[Rookie50]

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviat ... 1111&key=1

[pelmet]

Interesting that the report did not mention much of what was discussed on this thread such as fuel issues and ATC restricting where the pilot could land.

Just shows that the accident investigators don't tell us all significant information that is out there and available to them. On another thread, there was a discussion about whether CVR's should be released. One thing about having them released is that some of the information limiting that may be done by the investigating agency is mitigated allowing the reader to get a better picture of what happened.

[Rockie]

I don't know anything about Cirrus's, but at one point while enroute to Concorde the pilot tells the controller that he has 14 gallons of fuel left. When asked how much time that gives him the pilot stated "a little less than a hour" and that when he lands he will have 11 gallons left. After the first approach at Concorde the pilot tells the controller he has 11 gallons/25 minutes of fuel left. Pretty accurate numbers and it sounds like he was reading it off some kind of flight management system. Early in the process the controller breaks another aircraft off the approach due to an emergency in progress, but later asks the pilot if he was declaring an emergency and the response was "not at this time". Fuel doesn't seem to be a real problem - at least not before the pilot's first approach in Concorde anyway.

It's reasonable to me that with other excellent options available the controllers would clear the busy area and direct the Cirrus to another airfield very close by. They do have a lot of other airplanes to worry about after all and keeping the Cirrus at CLT was becoming an issue. The controller was very helpful ensuring the pilot had the right approach in Concorde even confirming waypoints for him. However the controller kept asking if the pilot was capable of "GPS" approaches, and the pilot confirmed he was able to conduct "RNAV GPS" approaches. The terminology is misleading because with the weather indicated the pilot needed to conduct an "LPV" approach to be able to make it in which requires WAAS. I suspect it is, but can someone confirm the Cirrus is capable of LPV approaches?

In any event, it appears the Cirrus was having serious control problems in both CLT and Concorde and that's what ultimately caused the pilot to deploy the chute.

[pelmet]

Control problems from the autopilot do seem to be the focus of the report. It does mention that the aircraft started climbing and banking after engaging the autopilot. He then selected straight and level on the autopilot which did not seem to help. Then he deployed the parachute. It is quite possible that much information is missing from the report but it does not mention about pushing the autopilot disengage button first which would seem to be the logical thing to do.

I believe this is a later version of the SR22 if it has a straight and level autopilot function. On the SR22 G1 version which I am familiar with, the A/P disengage button is simply just pushing down on the "coolie hat" trim button on the sidestick.

Like any of the modern aircraft, I can tell from experience on the Cirrus that if you are not quite familiar with the avionics, wrong buttons get pushed and the aircraft does undesirable things.

Serious flight control problems?.....Believe that if you like, and no doubt the investigators will look into that(which is likely done on initial investigation at the crash site). But they will no doubt also be checking to see if any autoflight malfunctions can be replicated if the investigation is continued beyond that point(due to no flight control faults found). Which is why the PFD, the autopilot computer, and the multi-function display were forwarded to the NTSB lab. Fortunately, the parachute landing means little damage to the aircraft.