Not sure what your problem is. I asked a question, you didn't answer it, someone else did. Moving on.
SR20 "Runway Excursion" at CYKZ (Buttonville)
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
Re: SR20 "Runway Excursion" at CYKZ (Buttonville)
Re: SR20 "Runway Excursion" at CYKZ (Buttonville)
If you would have bothered to actually read the article as you claim you did.
"The TSB said the plane went down around 2 p.m. Tuesday, and came to rest on an embankment on the north side of 16th Avenue, near Highway 404, a busy multi-lane highway."
Then maybe you wouldn't have been questioning those of us who actually did take the time to educate ourselves on the topic.
I have a problem with people who can't be bothered to do some research and, instead, question other posters who are trying to help by sharing the facts backed up by sources.Not sure what your problem is
Re: SR20 "Runway Excursion" at CYKZ (Buttonville)
"C-FACJ, a privately registered Cirrus SR20 aircraft, was rented by a commercially licensed pilot for
the purpose of building flight time. As the pilot had limited experience on this aircraft type, in
addition to no recent flying, the pilot hired an instructor to provide some training. The instructor was
a Class 1 instructor, and a Transport Canada accredited Pilot Examiner.
On 12 March 2019 at 1342 Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), the aircraft departed from Runway 33 at
Toronto/Buttonville Municipal (CYKZ), ON, with the commercial pilot and the instructor on board,
with the intention to conduct some circuits at CYKZ. The wind was light and variable, so the aircraft
joined the left downwind leg of the circuit for Runway 33, and planned for a touch-and-go.
At 1348 EDT on the initial touchdown, the aircraft bounced and full power was added to commence
the takeoff portion of the touch-and-go. The nose of the aircraft was raised, the aircraft became
briefly airborne, before returning to the surface abruptly. The nose was raised again, and the tail of
the aircraft struck the runway as the aircraft became airborne again, albeit briefly. As the aircraft
contacted the ground the third time, the outer right flap hinge and right wheel contacted the ground
outside of the runway surface laterally, approximately 1000 feet from the runway end. The nose
was raised again, and the aircraft continued the take-off roll.
As the aircraft left the runway surface longitudinally, still on the ground, it struck a 4 foot high fence,
located 60 feet from the runway end. Past this fence, the terrain slopes down toward 16th Avenue,
which crosses the departure path perpendicularly. The aircraft crossed 16th Avenue in the air, in a
right bank, and dragging the right wing tip. The aircraft passed directly in front of a tow truck that
was in the westbound lane, and the driver of the vehicle captured the event on dash-camera. North
of 16th Avenue, the terrain rises rapidly; the aircraft collided with the ground, and came to a stop
approximately 250 feet passed the end of Runway 33. The two occupants were wearing 4-point
safety belts and received no significant injuries. The aircraft received significant damage to the
wings, nose, tail, landing gear, and propeller.
The aircraft was equipped with an Avidyne FlightMax Entegra flight display that recorded engine
and GPS data. The unit recorded data at 10hz, or one data point every 6 seconds. This data was
acquired and analyzed by the TSB following the accident. It was noticed that, following the initial
touchdown on Runway 33, the engine RPM and manifold pressure increased to full, followed by a
significant reduction, and then a return to full. During the touch-and-go attempt, the recorded
ground speed steadily decreased from 61 kts at the initial touchdown point, to 52 kts shortly before
impact."
Looks like a botched go-around after a bounced landing. The Cirrus itself is not a demanding aircraft to land but bounces can happen in any aircraft. It would be interesting to know why the power was reduced after being set to full on the go-around attempt and the discussions/actions between the pilots at this time. I don't know if time is taken by the investigators at the TSB to interview the pilots. That could give better insight for people to understand why the accident happened.
the purpose of building flight time. As the pilot had limited experience on this aircraft type, in
addition to no recent flying, the pilot hired an instructor to provide some training. The instructor was
a Class 1 instructor, and a Transport Canada accredited Pilot Examiner.
On 12 March 2019 at 1342 Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), the aircraft departed from Runway 33 at
Toronto/Buttonville Municipal (CYKZ), ON, with the commercial pilot and the instructor on board,
with the intention to conduct some circuits at CYKZ. The wind was light and variable, so the aircraft
joined the left downwind leg of the circuit for Runway 33, and planned for a touch-and-go.
At 1348 EDT on the initial touchdown, the aircraft bounced and full power was added to commence
the takeoff portion of the touch-and-go. The nose of the aircraft was raised, the aircraft became
briefly airborne, before returning to the surface abruptly. The nose was raised again, and the tail of
the aircraft struck the runway as the aircraft became airborne again, albeit briefly. As the aircraft
contacted the ground the third time, the outer right flap hinge and right wheel contacted the ground
outside of the runway surface laterally, approximately 1000 feet from the runway end. The nose
was raised again, and the aircraft continued the take-off roll.
As the aircraft left the runway surface longitudinally, still on the ground, it struck a 4 foot high fence,
located 60 feet from the runway end. Past this fence, the terrain slopes down toward 16th Avenue,
which crosses the departure path perpendicularly. The aircraft crossed 16th Avenue in the air, in a
right bank, and dragging the right wing tip. The aircraft passed directly in front of a tow truck that
was in the westbound lane, and the driver of the vehicle captured the event on dash-camera. North
of 16th Avenue, the terrain rises rapidly; the aircraft collided with the ground, and came to a stop
approximately 250 feet passed the end of Runway 33. The two occupants were wearing 4-point
safety belts and received no significant injuries. The aircraft received significant damage to the
wings, nose, tail, landing gear, and propeller.
The aircraft was equipped with an Avidyne FlightMax Entegra flight display that recorded engine
and GPS data. The unit recorded data at 10hz, or one data point every 6 seconds. This data was
acquired and analyzed by the TSB following the accident. It was noticed that, following the initial
touchdown on Runway 33, the engine RPM and manifold pressure increased to full, followed by a
significant reduction, and then a return to full. During the touch-and-go attempt, the recorded
ground speed steadily decreased from 61 kts at the initial touchdown point, to 52 kts shortly before
impact."
Looks like a botched go-around after a bounced landing. The Cirrus itself is not a demanding aircraft to land but bounces can happen in any aircraft. It would be interesting to know why the power was reduced after being set to full on the go-around attempt and the discussions/actions between the pilots at this time. I don't know if time is taken by the investigators at the TSB to interview the pilots. That could give better insight for people to understand why the accident happened.
-
youhavecontrol
- Rank 5
- Posts: 397
- Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:17 am
Re: SR20 "Runway Excursion" at CYKZ (Buttonville)
At what point did the instructor say, "I have control?" That's what I want to know.
"I found that Right Rudder you kept asking for."
-
rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4410
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: SR20 "Runway Excursion" at CYKZ (Buttonville)
....and how much was that "limited experience" on type -- if that limited in either time on type or recent flying time -- why wouldn't a class 1 instructor insist on some upper airwork first before right into circuits?youhavecontrol wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:35 am At what point did the instructor say, "I have control?" That's what I want to know.
Re: SR20 "Runway Excursion" at CYKZ (Buttonville)
One can only guess at what happened. We can come up with theories that would end up being incorrect but not much else can be done.
It reminds me of a C152 accident a few years back at a school where I was flying that seriously injured a student pilot that I knew in Agua Dulce. There was a disagreement between the two pilots during the takeoff roll. In this case, neither was particularly experienced. At some point the pilot flying decided to abort after which the other pilot decided that it was better to continue. They ended up airborne at a slow airspeed and the original pilot decided to takeover again, lowered the nose to regain airspeed and but then contacted power lines and crashed. In that case, both pilots were relatively inexperienced.
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... L&IType=LA
In the Cirrus case, it was inexperienced pilot with experienced instructor(at least in terms of total time). When I read the last paragraph of the TSB report where full power was added after the bounce, then was significantly reduced, it makes me wonder if one felt it best to go around, the other felt that the go-around shouldn't happen(for whatever reason) and then when things got out of hand, a second go-around decision was made and possibly not handled well(a tail and wing had already been struck so things were not being handled well).
Different scenarios but possible parallels.
It reminds me of a C152 accident a few years back at a school where I was flying that seriously injured a student pilot that I knew in Agua Dulce. There was a disagreement between the two pilots during the takeoff roll. In this case, neither was particularly experienced. At some point the pilot flying decided to abort after which the other pilot decided that it was better to continue. They ended up airborne at a slow airspeed and the original pilot decided to takeover again, lowered the nose to regain airspeed and but then contacted power lines and crashed. In that case, both pilots were relatively inexperienced.
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... L&IType=LA
In the Cirrus case, it was inexperienced pilot with experienced instructor(at least in terms of total time). When I read the last paragraph of the TSB report where full power was added after the bounce, then was significantly reduced, it makes me wonder if one felt it best to go around, the other felt that the go-around shouldn't happen(for whatever reason) and then when things got out of hand, a second go-around decision was made and possibly not handled well(a tail and wing had already been struck so things were not being handled well).
Different scenarios but possible parallels.
