The pilot had just purchased the Cirrus SR22 a week before the accident and had a few hours of transition training.
On the day of the accident, he was going to go out and fly in the traffic pattern at the airport in Fairfield, New Jersey, and perform some touch-and-go landings.
During the first landing, the airplane was slightly off runway center and a gust of wind blew it left off the runway and into a runway sign.
The left wing sustained substantial damage.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s failure to maintain directional control during the landing roll in gusting wind conditions.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This August 2021 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
Disclaimer: I’ve never flown a Cirrus. But I’ve flown many different singles of varying performance capabilities over the past 50+ years. A 79 hour pilot shouldn’t leap from a trainer to a high performance airplane without plenty of transition training—not just a few hours. It’s another case of too big a wallet and too little skill.
those high performance airplane should not be handled by low time pilot as a rule.
minimum 200 hours and 15 hours of dual to insure safety. sound too strict? think about live saving.
Aviation incidences qualifying as insurable when they happen at stage for lodging CLAIM is you start learning a lot more about caveats in the small print. A small ( Low Cost ) Carrier may not have the financial muscle to hook up ‘ safe’ cover especially against fire and Coups and related security risks . So mapping a way towards compliance one wants to fly first ,get some money then adjust to get on with the business. Miscalculation in the trade offs can mean demise of the business if the plane is grounded for minor and isolated damage. So it is either much more information OR just better affordable deals by insurer to justify easier Air transport.
Once again, another accident and another poor reflection on the sorry state of transition training.
The SR 22 is a very easy and responsive aircraft to fly. Easy to land, and easy to correct in a strong crosswind.
What cures most of these ridiculous accidents is making sure that the student is proficient in the airplane, which is mandated in the regulations. Must demonstrate proficiency in maneuvers A through Z.
As a CFII, I don’t want my name in anyone’s logbook without seeing actual proficiency.
I just don’t understand the race to the bottom in terms of hours and skill. 🤦🏼
Again, another very low time pilot, 79 hrs TT, moves up from a C172 to a Cirrus SR22, and can’t land it in a moderate crosswind. It looks like expensive damage.
I’ll bet that his high cost insurance will now be much higher.!!
A friend started initial training in a Mooney, and the insurance is $7,000…!!
And I thought that the $1,600 I pay to insure a Cessna 175B was high.?
Mooney=retractable gear +student=higher premiums
Everyone’s insurance goes up.
The Cirrus is an engineering failure since it will not recover from a stall. Previous military prototypes the pilots could eject, then Aerospace Engineers added stall strips to the nose area. My go to Aerospace Engineer explained it to me. The Cirrus counter to that failure is a parachute which opens at 800′, but most take off or landing stalls are below 600′. I personally value my life and will not get in one of these future coffin aircraft.
Sure would like to see additional details about “will not recover from a stall”.
Your aerospace engineer is wrong and is relying on old wives’ tales by those who didn’t follow the Cirrus development program. The Cirrus SR airplanes went through many stall and spin tests during certification and recovered conventionally. The parachute was added as another safety device, not because it was required as part of certification, as many have incorrectly surmised.
You’re absolutely right, Mr. Tom Haines. Anyway, a stall occurring below 800′ (the 600′ mentioned by Mr. Jorma Kiwi), even with a parachute like the one present in a Cirrus, would be a dangerous occurrence. I indeed doubt that the FAA would certified a plane with the “engineering failure” that Mr. Jorma Kiwi makes allusion.