Cirrus SR20 Down in North Sea

Almost correct. The 172S was introduced in 1998 with G1000 becoming an option in 2005 (NAVIII). For the next two years you could order an aircraft with NAVII (traditional) or NAVIII (G1000). From 2007 onwards the only avionics option available was G1000.

So he flew a Cessna with G1000. See here a trip report from him flying to the south of Europe and how he prepared for such a trip, including the tools he used.

Very interesting …
Reading only some of it, I getthe impression of a careful, experienced pilot. Definitely not some reckless Cowboy.
He had a lot of G1000 experience, and therefore should have had very little problems with the Avidyne cockpit, whic is really more simple and intuitive.

I had a different impression when I first read about the accident, now i find it more strange that this happened.

So we’ve gone from “what an idiot to launch into icing conditions” to “he was below freezing level”, from “he’s too old to learn glass” to “he probably had a few dozen hours behind a glass cockpit”, and from “he was clueless” to “he seemed pretty sharp given his trip reports” – and calling each other out rather aggressively in the process.

What exactly were your new year resolutions, guys?

We started with speculations, and now we have learned some interesting facts that change the picture – a bit. We don’t have to discuss if that was the right weather to cross the North Sea …

@denopa
One thought that came to my mind was … what if I would crash, would all of a sudden my last moves be discussed like this over here and on other forums?
In the end … as I said … nobody was there with him in the cockpit, so we have no clue what really happened.

In the end this comes back to the same old question: should accidents be discussed?

I think they should be – because we can learn from such a discussion.

Most GA accidents are questions marks. No FDR, no CVR. So saying we should wait for the accident report (the usual form on some other sites) is useless, because

• usually the report is mostly speculation as to what the pilot actually did / was actually thinking
• usually the report comes out a long time later – 2 years or so in some cases I recall – by which time almost everybody has forgotten about it

Obviously hyperbolae like say “only an idiot would fly in such wx” are best avoided, because nobody learns from that.

What do the pilot’s trip reports show that’s relevant to this accident?

That he used (or at least knew of) weather tools, for example; and that he’d been around quite a lot, from which you can reasonably suppose he learnt something.

we should, I agree, discuss accidents as they’re excellent learning opportunities. It would be great if we could avoid passing judgement on the pilots, especially when they’re dead.

@Peter

the Cirrus has a pretty powerful “FDR”, sort of. If they recover the MFD we will get all flight and engine data, including a 3D profile of the flight.

I think it is good to discuss accidents.

Aviation safety is what it is today because there is supposedly a culture that encourages all parties to provide all the elements that will allow the investigators to understand the direct and indirect causes, and recommend corrective actions to improve safety, as opposed to what is the case in for example the medical professions where CYA is the main preoccupation.

Let’s leave the unfounded and unenlightened speculations to mass media.