Yeah, nitpicking into the corner on this one. I can read each of the posts and find something I agree with, and, in some cases, things which are a little beyond what is necessary. If new pilots are overwhelmed with the nitpick details, main, and critically important themes may not stick as well. This accident shows the observer that near the stall, the torque may exceed the capability of the airplane to be controlled to maintain level, coordinated flight. The result will likely be an unintended spin entry. At low altitude, that’s probably fatal. The message is, achieve and maintain adequate flying speed, and keep the ball centered, even if doing so is going to put you into the ground. Returning to earth with some engine power is not good if it’s not what you’re trying to do. But spinning in is the worse possible outcome. Like Vmca in twins in some situations, the plane has been placed in a position in the air where fly away safely is no longer possible. In that case, crash landing ahead mostly under control is the best outcome. More power won’t help, a CAPs won’t help. The only thing which would have helped would be more altitude, but it’s too late for that. As has been said, if you think you’re going to crash, fly the plane as far into the crash as you can = maintain flying speed and control!
Good points all @Pilot_DAR that relate to the actual issues of aircraft control under duress.
I have had an colleague or instructor who said every approach is a go around and only if nothing goes wrong you are lucky you can land.
That would be true in case of 99,99% of airports, but the 0,01% still remains. There are landing places in mountains, where once you cross a certain threshold, you are committed, no matter what. There is no go around.
The reason I mention this fact here is because I witnessed a near fatal incident involving a new SR22T flown by an accomplished businessman and freshly minted pilot into a place where there is no go around. He didn’t spare expenses on flight training, platinum grade instructors etc.
every approach is a go around and only if nothing goes wrong you are lucky you can land.
I think it is better to learn how to land and focus on landing.
I wonder if an SR22 bounces more than other “IFR” types because it has gear with no damping?
I actually agree with @172driver but would add that the lighter the aircraft is and the more experience on type one has, the more easy this maneuver becomes. When I sense a slight balloon coming up, either because I was too fast or encountered a gust, my instinctive reaction is to push the stick forward to level the aircraft, hold it there for maybe just a second or two while the speed bleeds off and pull back on the stick for a normal landing. Sometimes with a tad of power. Obviously remaining rwy allowing.
I think it’s actually a nice exercise to increase your skills. Did not teach it to any student though, imagining me losing my ‘job’ if he would do this during his exam 
A factor, yes.
The gear is fine, though. It bounces because people come in to fast and try to force it to land when the plane isn’t ready to land yet. Especially with 1 POB and fuel this happens easily.
Parthurnax wrote:
Your angle of attack is actually higher [during decent] than during the cruise.
How come? I would say the opposite. In the descent the wing actually has to provide less lift than in cruise as drag has a vertical component.
Airborne_Again wrote:
How come?
Lift = 1/2 d * v2 * S * CL
If you reduce speed, you have to increase CL (AoA) to maintain the same lift. So actually it may not be the case. If you descend fast it could be lower. But on final it will be higher I suspect even though you reduce lift to descend, speed is squared so slowing down has a much greater effect and probably you still need to increase AoA even in descent. I haven’t done any calculations though so I might be wrong.
hazek wrote:
If you reduce speed, you have to increase CL (AoA) to maintain the same lift.
Obviously! (Did you really think I didn’t know that?) But if you compare the AoA in descent with that in cruise, it must be implied that everything else is the same – otherwise a comparison is meaningless.
I apologize and see your point. I only read the quote and didn’t reread whole post you were responding to. I do agree that AoA in a descent isn’t necessarily greater than in cruise, especially not all things being equal and one keeps the same speed, then it’s certainly lower otherwise we wouldn’t be descending. I don’t know why he said that the downward path will increase AoA by itself, I would have thought it depends on pitch.
