Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

ATC possibly overloading a pilot?

LeSving wrote:

Good question. But will you ever be so current at flying circuits as you were when you just got your PPL? I would say no, unless you become an instructor, or tow gliders

I would say you are way better 5 years or so later if flying reasonably regularly. You can do things with the aircraft you wouldnt dream of having just got your PPL. Of course if you dont fly regularly, gain experience etc then I would agree.

Thanks JasonC that is a very detailed account.

That is so distressing to read Jason. She was at 100 ft altitude, pitched up, reduced power, stowed flaps and increased bank angle. It looks like her brain was completely fried after everything ATC had done to her.

I know it is easy to say that it is her responsibility and she just had to fly the plane. But imagine this had been an airliner that had been told to make numerous go rounds, reposition for different runways multiple times at low altitude, confused instructions etc. The pilots would have been fuming and we would have had some choice expletives to listen to on the tape.

My view is that ATC are highly culpable in this case for making completely unreasonable demands of the GA pilot because they didnt manage the flow of incoming traffic properly. I believe it is also their responsibility to understand that a GA pilot is more likely to follow instructions without question or push back, and thus more likely to make a mistake in extremis.

Upper Harford private strip UK, near EGBJ, United Kingdom

At 1308:26, the airspeed was 74 KIAS, which was the highest airspeed that the airplane achieved during the climb out, and the airspeed then began to decrease. At 1308:36, the tower controller finished his clearance and began another part of the clearance at 1308:42 and continued transmitting past the last recorded point. At 1308:45, the airplane entered a left turn with the airspeed decreasing through 64 KIAS. At 1308:52, power was reduced from 94% to about 81%, with a corresponding reduction in engine parameters. The flaps were moved from full to half flaps at 1308:56, with the airplane at 13° nose up, 18° of left bank, and 62 KIAS. The flaps were fully retracted (0° flaps) at 1309:02 with the airplane in a 26° left bank and travelling at 58 KIAS. One second later, the airplane was in a 71° left bank, the pitch dropped to 5° nose low, and engine power increased to 90%. No further data were recorded.

Taking the 1308:26 to 1309:02, it appears that the pilot did not monitor the airspeed (which was already too low at 74kt) for 36 seconds, which is a long time, and the end shows how fast things can happen if you get the SR20 really slow.

Having spoken to various pilots over the years, I do wonder if so many people fly too slowly. There is no point, for something like an SR22, in flying in the circuit at less than 90-100kt. You can always bleed the speed off on the base leg or (if not flying a rectangular circuit) the base turn. I see a lot of people fly C152 types at 60kt in the circuit.

Mind you, under the flood of instructions from ATC, not many people would be watching their speed. But if you are at least trimmed, it should not be a problem. How easy is it to keep the SR20/22 trimmed in pitch when hand flying?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I don’t know the Cirrus checklist but I assume after positive rate the pilot should have retracted full flap to half flap. I guess that is what prevented acceleration. @bookworm’s point on visual perceptions could have meant she overestimated her speed hence the power retraction. Then noticed that full flap was still out. Just a bad combination of problems.

Low go arounds with full flap are rarely practiced and almost never executed in real life. It is usually flap, gear, flap after positive rate and with sufficient airspeed.

EGTK Oxford

Jason you are right. There is another thread about CAPS running. Many / most cirrus pilots will use 500 for flaps and CAPS, but how often are late go arounds practised as you state. The 20 is a little lack lustre on performance as well and hardly sparkling in the climb out.

Looking at the time line it would be interesting to project just how high the aircraft was when it commenced the turn. Maybe it was around 500 feet, and maybe the pilot was accustom to take the flaps at 500. In reality the climb was continued with full flaps and then in a few seconds the flaps were retracked completely in two quick steps.

Last Edited by Fuji_Abound at 03 Dec 23:41

Buckerfan wrote:

My view is that ATC are highly culpable in this case for making completely unreasonable demands of the GA pilot because they didnt manage the flow of incoming traffic properly

I just don’t buy that. There are way too many similar accidents of this sort that don’t have any element of ATC pushing the pilot around. This accident is an exception in this regard. The high traffic is obviously normal at that airport, and if this was the norm, it would be an accident there every other hour or something.

This summer, an RV-4 fell down in a similar manner on final at Hamar, killing both on board. No ATC, no one else in the circuit. It just fell down due to getting too slow for some reason we will probably never know. The day after someone posted this video on the EAA FB page, giving some context to these kind of accidents.



The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

This year I had an incident where the A/S over read by around 20 knots, and later in the flight under read by a similiar amount. It turned out to be contamination in the pitot. It was quite bizarre, especially the reversal. Flying the aircraft quite a lot I had a relatively quick sense that the noise, performance and visual cues were all wrong. While I know it is very unlikely, I found myself wondering about this accident whether anything similiar could have happened. It just seems odd that the pilot may have been so slow on the approach and then again slow on the climb out. I could understand a mistake on the climb out, but it is odd to fly a slow approach (if she really did) because, as I commented earlier, flying the aircraft at the book approach speed is something that is drummed into you, and this would have been especially true in the States where type conversions on the Cirrus are pretty much a prerequisite to insurance.

I am guessing the CAPS was not used either. Assuming the touch drills were at 500 feet which would be normal, and these corresponded with taking the flaps, which we know she did, the CAPS would have just been alive, even if it would need to have been used without hesitation.

Peter wrote:

How easy is it to keep the SR20/22 trimmed in pitch when hand flying?

I find the 22 very easy to keep trimmed, and I have less than 30 hours on type

172driver wrote:

In my mind the first hole in the cheese was her getting too slow on the approach and it all went downhill from there.

Normally ATC is pretty good at telling you ‘keep your speed up’ when it’s needed. At Hobby and similar places, it’s expected, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve been asked to ‘keep your speed up’ at similar airports. There may have been a bad assumption made by ATC that the aircraft was a Cirrus, and therefore reasonably hot, and would fly at least 120kt until quite close in.

Andreas IOM

alioth wrote:

Normally ATC is pretty good at telling you ‘keep your speed up’ when it’s needed. At Hobby and similar places, it’s expected, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve been asked to ‘keep your speed up’ at similar airports.

ATC did exactly that, one of the first transmissions in the video. And yes, it’s a totally standard call by ATC if being sequenced with following jet traffic.

60 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top