ERA15LA062 · Cirrus Design CORP. SR22T

The private pilot was conducting a personal cross-country flight with three passengers on board. The pilot reported that, during the preflight inspection, he checked the quantity of engine oil and verified that there was an adequate supply of engine oil on board. During cruise flight, about 9,000 ft mean sea level (msl), the oil pressure indication decreased to 0, which resulted in both audible and visual warnings. The engine power then reduced to idle, and the pilot's attempts to restore engine power by moving the throttle were not successful. The pilot subsequently diverted to a nearby airport about 7.5 nautical miles (nm) away. He stated that he descended the airplane slightly faster than the published best glide airspeed. When the airplane was at 800 ft msl and he realized it would not be able to land at the intended runway, he deployed the ballistic parachute. The airplane descended under the canopy, hit trees, descended to the ground, and then came to rest about 3/4 nm from the approach end of the intended runway.

A postaccident examination and test run of the engine revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions. Further, normal engine oil pressure was noted during the engine run; however, subsequent examination of the oil pressure transducer revealed that it was faulty and would have resulted in an erroneous oil pressure indication, as reported by the pilot. Further, although the pilot indicated that the engine lost power following the loss of oil pressure indication, which was supported by data downloaded from the onboard recording devices that showed decreased readings for fuel flow, exhaust gas temperature, and cylinder head temperature, the loss of engine power was consistent with the pilot's operation of the engine controls not with a mechanical malfunction or failure of the engine.

Although the pilot reported that he descended the airplane slightly above the published best glide speed after first locating the alternate airport, the recorded data indicated that he descended at an indicated airspeed far greater than the published best glide speed for the majority of the descent. If the pilot had slowed to and maintained the published best glide speed either at the time of the first abnormal indication or after first locating the alternate airport, it is likely that the airplane would have been able to reach the intended runway and land successfully.

Further, although the pilot reported that he deployed the parachute at 800 ft msl, it was actually deployed when the airplane was at 453 ft msl, or about 340 ft above ground level (agl), excluding the treetop heights. Although the successful deployment of the parachute has been demonstrated at less than 400 ft agl, the low-altitude deployment likely contributed to the severity of the accident by not allowing the parachute to fully deploy and adequately decelerate the airplane into an approximately level attitude.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset