Anyone read about Randy Brooks (owner of Barnes Bullets) and his crash into a lake in Feb? Seem he was flying quite low, a wing dipped and hit the water, and the plane crashed. They're trying to get the $300K plane out now. His insurance has to pay to recover the plane from the National Park.

Did Randy get out, and if so, was he injured and did he have passengers with him? What kind of aircraft was he flying? Besides making some great bullets, he and his wife have been great supporters of hunting and the shooting sports. Mags

Was flying a Ciruss SR22 with his brother and Olympian Rulon Gardner. Ended up putting down in Lake Powell a little over a mile out. All three made it to shore and after a very cold night were picked up by some guys from a fishing tournement the following morning.

Rhys, thanks for the info. A happy ending, at least! The SR-22 has a a "ballistic chute"(doesn't do much good in this case), the latest "glass cockpit", and "side controllers"; however, it probably has the worst accident record of any of the new aircraft currently on the market. I have to to wonder if the new "side controlers" make the plane just a bit less "intuitive" in an emergency. I remember this being a big discussion item when the Air Force first came out with the F-16. It seems that new pilots adapted better to the "new" controls than older pilot used to "conventional sticks". Mags

Mags,

I find the side mounted control sticks to be very intuitive. In fact after spending a few years in an A-320 I found coming back to a yoke to be cumbersome.

As far as the SR-22 goes. Man I just can't warm up to that little devil. The numbers on it are just fine. It's fast it doesn't carry shit. I think the major problem isn't the airplane but rather the pilots they market it to. Rich private pilots with huge egos and little experience.

And it's double butt ugly to boot.

Surestrike - The only "side stick" I've ever used was in the front seat of a "Cobra" and conparing a "dynamically unstable" helicopter to a fixed wing is more than a "stretch". Your experience is something I'd like to try. I think the "Bananza" went through the phase where it was faster and more sophisticated than the pilots who could afford to buy them, but hey, that's our economic system (you take the bad with the good sometimes). I've seen in my life time a good many pilots in aviation that didn't know how their "new technology" avionics worked or how to interpret what the gages were "telling them", but they could take off and land really great. I'm really talking "out of school" here, for I really don't know Randy's level of training or experience (he may be a good pilot on a "bad day"). And, it may have just been an "pure" accident where he lost "depth perception" over the water, which is not hard to do (I've flown alot of "overwater ops" in the service and a good "radar altimeter", especially at night, is worth its weight in gold). I'm just glad he'll get a chance to learn from the event. Regards, Mags

I wasn't referring to Randy Brooks in particular with my comment. Rather looking at 12 fatal accidents and a handful of non fatal accidents involving the SR-22 I find one thing in common. Bad judgment and inexperience.

Typical private pilot syndrome when a guy gets into an airplane that eats up miles faster than his brain operates.

Surestrike said it right... SR22's are great planes, but the people that buy them seem to have more money than brains, and this is an airplane that can get ahead of someone in a hurry. From what I've heard, the Randy Brooks Accident was nothing more than pilot error (very, very stupid pilot error), so the type of aircraft is not relevent.

It sounds like the "NTSB" has met and declared, "rich" pilots + fast planes = stupid and dangerous flying. No wonder the FAA is so well liked by the non-flying public. They report on "hear-say" and we decide. You can read about Gen. Yeagar, (the late) Crossfield, or any of the multitude of "hot shot" pilots who have flown higher and faster than any of us here and see how many aircraft they "wrecked" in their careers to get their "Icon" status of being the "best". Or consider how inattention at the wrong time or an "impulse" to do something "daring" bites you in the @#$ when as "youths" we had gotten by with it many times without anyone being the wiser? Granted, there are people who should not fly aircraft (or drive for that matter) due to lack of motor skills, mental capacity, or spacial orientation; but for older pilots it is usually "complacency", not lack of skills that places one in a situation where he has to use his superior skills and knowledge to get him out of a "fix". Ask "458" or any of the other (exceptional) "bush pilots" just how risky landing on a "gravel bar" in a sudden rain storm is when chances are you only have one "shot" to make it without tearing up something and what it was like the first time they did it. "Sit" on their "boards" and explain how taking the risk from an "arm chair" perspective is not very smart or is "reckles". I agree that this accident has the "ear marks" of many possible errors in judgment or skill level which may be "traced" to his ability to buy an aircraft beyond his capabilities; however, next time you get behind that 160 mph sports car with your cell phone in your pocket, thank your "lucky stars" if you crash a "safety board" will not convene on this or any other forum on your compentency (your next of kin will just get a check from your insurance company with their condolences). There is a good reason there are "no old bold pilots" and most in that fraternity, myself included, have made alot of stupid mistakes along the way (and lived) to be included in the "club". Mags

Mags,

I'll say it one more time. I wasn't referring to Randy Brooks in general rather the other documented studied, investigated and concluded SR-22 accidents that I've read about.

Comparing the test pilot fraternity of the 1950's IE Yeager, Crossfield and others to a rich old fart with large bank account and the maturity level of 19 year old is quite a stretch.

The test pilots of today are not in the same category. In fact it is quite rare for a guy to have an inflight egress even once in his test pilot career.

Flying bush, flying combat, test flying, low level airshow flying are all calculated risks done for some type of functionality. IE getting a job done. I've done stuff when I was bush flying that I wouldn't dream of doing today. But we needed to get a job done and in some circumstances there were lives depending on it. Just like military flying.

Buzzing lake Powell so low that you smack water in your new half million dollar toy is just plain old screwing around.

I think there is a pretty big distinction there.

surestrike, you have an excellent point. Several, actually.

And back during the ancient 60's, we used to call the "Bananza" the forked-tail doctor-killer.

FWIW...

Well I been a Bush Pilot and I fly helicopters too. I never could warm up to the Ciruss SR-22 or any of the ones they make. A friend of mine instructs quite a bit in them. He likes them. To me they are way to small for a 400K airplane. Fast yep but not my cup of tea. Now one of those new Avaitat 200 hp Huskys and well Ohhh my. There are really two things going on here one, its fast and its light and it don't carry much, so you put new pilots in it, and there is information over load because its glass cockpit. and well the airplane get away from them because of all the do dads. They seem to be a popular airplane for some odd reason. Then again back when I was a new pilot Mooneys were the thing and they were fast and you could not carry much, but you could get in one and fly because you had Vac Gauges and KX170Bs and well it took just 5 min to figuire out how the switches worked. Now go to College for a week or two to learn how to turn on the radio.

Technology in anything, particualrly high performance aircraft, should decrease, not increase, workload. I don't have an opinion on the 22 because I've only seen them in pictures, but they do seem to be falling out of the sky at an alarming rate, from what I've read.

quote:

Originally posted by jetdrvr:
surestrike, you have an excellent point. Several, actually.

And back during the ancient 60's, we used to call the "Bananza" the forked-tail doctor-killer.

FWIW...

WHEN they first came out my father and two of his good friends each bought themselves a V35 to get around for business purposes and besides they were the hottest thing going at the time.
Within 6 months both of his friends who had hundreds of hours and were instrument rated just as he was had flown them into the ground killing themselves.
My dad sold his and even refused to fly in one ever again.

When I was flying and hanging around the local Beech dealer I used to get free flying ferrying planes here or there or going to pick up a rental that had to be left somewhere because of weather or whatever.
Whenever we had to take out a customer ship for the techs to check out new equipment installs we would always have TWO pilots sittng there on the V-Bonanzas so someone was always with the head in the game while the other was working with the tech.
God invented the V-tail to keep the earth from being overpopulated by doctors and lawyers.

quote:

Flying bush, flying combat, test flying, low level airshow flying are all calculated risks done for some type of functionality. IE getting a job done. I've done stuff when I was bush flying that I wouldn't dream of doing today. But we needed to get a job done and in some circumstances there were lives depending on it. Just like military flying.

Buzzing lake Powell so low that you smack water in your new half million dollar toy is just plain old screwing around.

I think there is a pretty big distinction there.

Amen.

We do things in a higher risk situation for our public safety mission and to gather data not available by other means in the natural resource flying I do.

We train constantly to minimize those risks and keep the time exposed to the increased risk limited to that necesary to complete the mission.

We accept these risks and RESPECT them. Part of the acceptance is that if for some reason things go wrong in certain profiles of flight, the aircraft is likely going to be lost, but our training and equipment should allow us to survive to grow old and say -

There I was.........

I've personally responded to 2 Cirrus accidents, both fatals. Both involved pilots flying into conditions they should not have, both into low IFR, one even lacked an instrument rating.

All the instruments and auto pilots in a fast and fancy airplane will not save your bacon if you exceed the personal limitations that you should have imposed upon yourself as a responsible pilot.

quote:

If you are in trouble anywhere in the world, an airplane can fly over and drop flowers, but a helicopter can land and save your life. - Igor Sikorski, 1947

Not picking on you ChopperGuy,
I once worked at Ft Wolters when it was the Army Primary Helicopter School. Seems they had several thousand OH-13s, OH-23Ds & Gs and TH-55s all looking for a place to crash.

Hey, no problem.

I fly both.

I've saved a few with the plane and I've watched victims perish from the cockpit without being able to do anything but make radio calls for help.

The helicopter adds to the sucess of rescue and recovery.

They all crash. My former boss was a Bird Dog pilot in Vietnam. Never would fly in the helicopter with me. Said he thought helicopters were only good for spotting air strikes and artillery shots referenced from the hulks of the choppers burning on the mountain sides.

Go figure. He survived 2 tours there.

Good luck.

quote:

Originally posted by fivebigbores:
what is the tail # of randy brooks plane some one of us should research the report it would be aout about now

IS this what your looking for???

NTSB Identification: SEA07CA064.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, February 24, 2007 in Glen Canyon Nat, UT
Probable Cause Approval Date: 5/29/2007
Aircraft: Cirrus Design Corp. SR22, registration: N224MT
Injuries: 3 Minor.
The aircraft collided with the surface of a lake while flying at low altitude over the water. The pilot said that he was flying over a lake at 50 feet above the water; and that there was a good ripple on the water to give him an altitude reference. He said that he maneuvered the airplane into another section of the lake and he noted that he was approximately 25 feet above the water. The pilot said "a few moments later, near the center of the bay, the water turned to glass smooth, and I must have lost depth perception because in a moment we were touching [the] water." The pilot said the airplane decelerated rapidly, and it did not nose over or sink immediately. The pilot and his two passengers exited the aircraft with no injuries, but spent over an hour swimming to shore in the 44-degree water. They were rescued the from the shore following morning.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot's intentional flight over water at low altitude and his subsequent failure to maintain adequate clearance from the water. A contributing factor was the glassy surface condition of the lake.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070409X00381&key=1

Full report is available.

Also known as a short between the head sets. We've all been there but some of got lucky.

I used to do glassy water landings in the PBY. They always made me a bit unesy.

This landplane pilot didn't even know that he was in trouble low over glassy water. Some things they don't teach in Private Pilot school, but one thing they do teach is to maintain sufficient altitude to look for a place to land in case of a problem. This guy was totally out of his element, simultaneously suffering from total lack of common sense.

Not just glassy water either. Some Joker once told me to get into my then town in bad weather you just flew down the beach.

Didn't think much about it but one day I got caught in one of thoes "it got too bad to turn around in" in vfr, due to the fact the beach was the only thing I could see.

What the silly dork and I forgot was the odd high rocky headlands. Too thick to go up over so had to go out to sea. Well I started packing death as I realised I couldn't tell in the heavy rain whether the white caps were 50feet or 5 feet. I looked at the edge of the headland for some perspective.

Eventually made it and the boss just whinged about all the paint worne off from the heavy rain.
But an Ag pilot has the benifit of being on his own, and about expected to crash anyway.

Money does not buy common sense even though it will buy a nice airplane.

quote:

The pilot and his two passengers exited the aircraft with no injuries, but spent over an hour swimming to shore in the 44-degree water. They were rescued the from the shore following morning.

I have read and re-read this report and I flat don't believe it! If you were to spend 'more than an hour in 44 degree water' then you would not have to worry about hot or cold, wet or dry when they recoverd your remains as you would be quite dead from hypothermia.
Very few people can swim a mile in 50 degree water, and this is people that are trained and used to swimming in such conditions, like the swim teams that swim out to and around Alcatraz Island. I cannot find the tables for dive time exposurewith cold water protection but did find this one:
Expected Survival Time in Cold Water
Water Temperature
Exhaustion or Unconsciousness in
Expected Survival Time

70–80° F (21–27° C)
3–12 hours
3 hours – indefinitely

60–70° F (16–21° C)
2–7 hours
2–40 hours

50–60° F (10–16° C)
1–2 hours
1–6 hours

40–50° F (4–10° C)
30–60 minutes
1–3 hours

32.5–40° F (0–44° C)
15–30 minutes
30–90 minutes

<32° F (<0° C)
Under 15 minutes
Under 15–45 minutes
(Taken from www.ussartf.org/cold_water_survival.htm )

Any one else have any ideas here or given any thought to this factor?

I'd wager the water temperature was measured by the NTSB guys. I know I couldn't survive for an hour in 44 degree water. I used to do a lot of cave and spring diving here in Florida at 70 degrees with quarter-inch neoprene. Just swimming around without a wetsuit would chill me pretty thoroughly in only a few minutes. Those guys were very, very lucky.

Bear in mind, Rulon Gardner is a world class athelete, and a wrestler too boot. Granted, at the time he probably was not in "competition" condition, but even so, he had many years of the most rigorous conditioning imaginable under his belt. Of course, this raises the question: how did the Brooks' survive (not being world class athletes and all). Can't answer that. Also, Rulon Gardner carries a fairly thick mantle of fat around his trunk area. He's well insulated. Even though he presents as a bit plump, at the last Olympiad the TV commentators were quite laudatory about his exceptional conditioning.


Jordan