Cirrus... is it time for certification review?

[john smith]

With the recent spate of Cirrus accidents, the question arises, "Is it
time for a special certification review?"

In the last twenty years, four general aviation aircraft have been
subjected to special certification review following a series of
accidents. The Cessna 210, Piper Malibu, Beech Bonanza and the
Mitusbushi MU-2.

In each case, pilot training was found to be the highest contributing
issue. In the case of the Bonanza, some structural strengthening was
recommended.

[Michael[_1_]]

john smith wrote:
> With the recent spate of Cirrus accidents, the question arises, "Is it
> time for a special certification review?"

Maybe. This is about the first reasonable question I've heard.

> In the last twenty years, four general aviation aircraft have been
> subjected to special certification review following a series of
> accidents. The Cessna 210, Piper Malibu, Beech Bonanza and the
> Mitusbushi MU-2.

You are forgetting the R-22 and R-44, as a minimum. I didn't know
about the C-210 and Malibu. Do you have any references?

> In each case, pilot training was found to be the highest contributing
> issue. In the case of the Bonanza, some structural strengthening was
> recommended.

I know that there is an AD against the MU-2 that requires either a
****load of cockpit automation (that most experienced MU-2 pilots
believe is not necessary) or annual recurrent training (that most
experienced MU-2 pilots believe is necessary).

Unlike most people who comment on the SR-22, I've actually got some
time in one. My first flight in it required me to assist the pilot
(who had something like 200 hours in his, and little additional flight
experience - but had taken his instrument training in it) with
completing a routine ILS approach with no complications/failures in
benign IMC. He actually managed to peg the GS needle, and I had to
talk him through the recovery without scaring the non-pilot passenger
in the back.

In addition to my few hours in the SR-22, I have well over 1000 hours
in planes of the same prefromance class (in terms of speed, load,
range, etc.) These include a reasonable sampling of the fleet (Lance,
straight-tail and V-tail Bonanzas, Mooneys, Twin Comanches, C-310,
Barons) and thus a basis for comparison. I don't think there is
anything inherently wrong with the SR-22. It's a fine airplane with
handling appropriate to the performance - meaning it's not a C-172 or
Cherokee, and isn't supposed to be. Probably the biggest issue with it
is slowing it down - it requires more planning on the descent and
deceleration than any other plane I've flown. There is nothing to help
the pilot slow down. No gear to drop, very low flap speed and flaps
that don't add much drag, and you can't even push the prop forward
without powering up. However, the difference is not terribly
problematic, and should not present a major problem for the experienced
pilot. For the inexperienced pilot, I can see how it would be a
handful.

The problem, as I see it, is that the plane is being marketed to low
time pilots as a 'simple' airplane - fixed gear, no prop control, just
like a C-172. Once we have a change of mindset - meaning that once we
accept that an SR-22 is no more (nor less) suitable for a low time
pilot than an A-36 or M-20R, we won't have a problem. But how many low
time pilots are buying A-36's and M-20R's?

I once checked out a low time pilot (150 hours over 10 years, ink still
wet on the temporary private) in an A-36 Bonanza. The insurance was a
special risk (only one company would even write him, at well over
double what a qualified pilot would pay), the insurance company was
very picky about who could do his checkout (they wanted 1500TT, 500
hours in planes that were both complex and high performance, though
they agreed to accept my Twin Comanche time in lieu though it didn't
technically meet that definition, and 50 hours in the larger IO-520/550
powered Bonanzas), and they wanted to see 25 hours dual prior to solo
and 25 hours of solo prior to carrying passengers.

I suspect that if the insurance companies treated SR-22 owners the way
they treat A-36 owners, most of the problems would go away - mostly by
discouraging low time pilots from buying the planes in the first place.

Michael

[Guy Elden Jr]

Michael wrote:

> I suspect that if the insurance companies treated SR-22 owners the way
> they treat A-36 owners, most of the problems would go away - mostly by
> discouraging low time pilots from buying the planes in the first place.

fwiw, AirShares Elite's insurance company seems to be at least
trying... I believe the last time I checked (about 2 years ago) the
requirement for purchasing a share in an SR-22 was 350 hours TT, and
either pursuing or already in posession of an instrument rating. Seems
like a very good floor to me, considering the plane can reach upwards
of 180 kts cruising.

I'd buy one in a heartbeat... were it not for the money factor. :)

--
Guy

[Newps]

john smith wrote:
> With the recent spate of Cirrus accidents, the question arises, "Is it
> time for a special certification review?"
>



Cue Mr. Borchert, main Cirrus apologist.

[Guy Elden Jr]

Michael wrote:

> I suspect that if the insurance companies treated SR-22 owners the way
> they treat A-36 owners, most of the problems would go away - mostly by
> discouraging low time pilots from buying the planes in the first place.

fwiw, AirShares Elite's insurance company seems to be at least
trying... I believe the last time I checked (about 2 years ago) the
requirement for purchasing a share in an SR-22 was 350 hours TT, and
either pursuing or already in posession of an instrument rating. Seems
like a very good floor to me, considering the plane can reach upwards
of 180 kts cruising.

I'd buy one in a heartbeat... were it not for the money factor. :)

--
Guy

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 27 Oct 2006 13:32:57 -0700, "Guy Elden Jr" >
wrote:

>Michael wrote:
>
>> I suspect that if the insurance companies treated SR-22 owners the way
>> they treat A-36 owners, most of the problems would go away - mostly by

I always thought the rates for the A36, F33 and Deb were quite
reasonable.

>> discouraging low time pilots from buying the planes in the first place.
>
>fwiw, AirShares Elite's insurance company seems to be at least
>trying... I believe the last time I checked (about 2 years ago) the

Have you seen the rates for even a medium time pilot in one of these.
You are looking at seven to nine grand a year.

>requirement for purchasing a share in an SR-22 was 350 hours TT, and

Groups and share ownership seem to be even higher.

>either pursuing or already in posession of an instrument rating. Seems
>like a very good floor to me, considering the plane can reach upwards
>of 180 kts cruising.
>
>I'd buy one in a heartbeat... were it not for the money factor. :)
I dislike the side stick and would trade one for a Twin Star or A36 in
a heart beat. That said, I think they are a very good airplane I just
don't happen to want one.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:55:31 GMT, john smith > wrote:

>With the recent spate of Cirrus accidents, the question arises, "Is it
>time for a special certification review?"

I don't think flying into icing conditions is time for a certification
review.

>
>In the last twenty years, four general aviation aircraft have been
>subjected to special certification review following a series of
>accidents. The Cessna 210, Piper Malibu, Beech Bonanza and the

"V-Tail Bo"

>Mitusbushi MU-2.
>
>In each case, pilot training was found to be the highest contributing
>issue. In the case of the Bonanza, some structural strengthening was
>recommended.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Darkwing]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On 27 Oct 2006 13:32:57 -0700, "Guy Elden Jr" >
> wrote:
>
>>Michael wrote:
>>
<SNIP>
>>
>>I'd buy one in a heartbeat... were it not for the money factor. :)
> I dislike the side stick and would trade one for a Twin Star or A36 in
> a heart beat. That said, I think they are a very good airplane I just
> don't happen to want one.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com


I definitely dig the Twin Star, seems like a really nice and capable
airplane. If only I had $500,000 to blow on an airplane!

--------------------------------------------------
DW

[Kyle Boatright]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> With the recent spate of Cirrus accidents, the question arises, "Is it
> time for a special certification review?"
>

Any aircraft has a baseline accident rate. I think the Cirrus has a higher
accident rate because a handful of pilots get themselves into a mindset
where they are willing to enter conditions they would have not entered
without the big round "insurance policy". Often they get away with pushing
things. Sometimes they don't, and those accidents are the ones that are
taking the Cirrus accident rate to higher than predicted levels.

The problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes.

[Ron Lee]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote:

>> With the recent spate of Cirrus accidents, the question arises, "Is it
>> time for a special certification review?"
>>

>The problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes.

Simple answers are usually the correct one. The pilot is the problem.

Ron Lee

[Peter Duniho]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
> Any aircraft has a baseline accident rate. I think the Cirrus has a
> higher accident rate because a handful of pilots get themselves into a
> mindset where they are willing to enter conditions they would have not
> entered without the big round "insurance policy". Often they get away
> with pushing things. Sometimes they don't, and those accidents are the
> ones that are taking the Cirrus accident rate to higher than predicted
> levels.
>
> The problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes.

I've yet to see anyone document an accident rate that is actually higher
than might be expected (never mind "predicted"...who has predicted a
specific accident rate for the Cirrus, and why should we believe that
prediction?).

A quick NTSB database search shows in the last six months 4 accidents (2
fatal) involving a Cirrus SR20, and 52 (5 fatal) involving a Cessna 172.
The SR22 was involved in 7 accidents (2 fatal), while the Cessna 182 was
involved in 36 (6 fatal).

One might say that the fatal accident rate seems disproportionate (50% of
the SR20, 25% for the SR22 versus 10% for the 172 and 20% for the 182), but
at the sample sizes present, there's absolutely no reasonable way to draw
any valid statistical conclusion (and note that for the SR22 and the 182,
the rates are actually similar).

The fact is, none of these airplanes are actually involved in fatal
accidents all that often, and the absolute numbers for overall accidents are
significantly lower for the Cirrus types than for comparable Cessna types
(of course, with a presumably much smaller fleet size, that's to be
expected, even without accounting for differences in utilization).

So, it seems to me that before we start throwing around statements like "the
problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes", it ought to be established
that there *is* a problem in the first place.

Pete

[Ron Lee]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

>So, it seems to me that before we start throwing around statements like "the
>problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes", it ought to be established
>that there *is* a problem in the first place.
>
>Pete

Pete, from the reports I have seen about Cirrus crashes it is clearly
pilot error. Of course the same probably applies to all aircraft
types.

Ron Lee
>

[Aluckyguess]

Looks like the Cirrus just gets more puplicity than the rest. I think its
because of the chute. They figure it shoudn't crash.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> . ..

<<<snip>>>
>
> So, it seems to me that before we start throwing around statements like
> "the problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes", it ought to be
> established that there *is* a problem in the first place.
>
> Pete

Flying magazine (or AOPA?.. dunno) ran the numbers a year or so ago and
compared the accident rate between Cirrus and competitive models. I don't
have a copy at hand, but there was a significant difference in accidents
with Cirrus having a much higher rate than the other A/C.

KB

[Dave Stadt]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Any aircraft has a baseline accident rate. I think the Cirrus has a
>> higher accident rate because a handful of pilots get themselves into a
>> mindset where they are willing to enter conditions they would have not
>> entered without the big round "insurance policy". Often they get away
>> with pushing things. Sometimes they don't, and those accidents are the
>> ones that are taking the Cirrus accident rate to higher than predicted
>> levels.
>>
>> The problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes.
>
> I've yet to see anyone document an accident rate that is actually higher
> than might be expected (never mind "predicted"...who has predicted a
> specific accident rate for the Cirrus, and why should we believe that
> prediction?).
>
> A quick NTSB database search shows in the last six months 4 accidents (2
> fatal) involving a Cirrus SR20, and 52 (5 fatal) involving a Cessna 172.
> The SR22 was involved in 7 accidents (2 fatal), while the Cessna 182 was
> involved in 36 (6 fatal).
>
> One might say that the fatal accident rate seems disproportionate (50% of
> the SR20, 25% for the SR22 versus 10% for the 172 and 20% for the 182),
> but at the sample sizes present, there's absolutely no reasonable way to
> draw any valid statistical conclusion (and note that for the SR22 and the
> 182, the rates are actually similar).

Apples and oranges. The 182 fleet is many times larger than the SR22 fleet.
And the 172 fleet is near infinite compared to the Cirrus fleet. The
numbers look pretty bad for Cirrus.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Michael" > wrote

> Probably the biggest issue with it
> is slowing it down - it requires more planning on the descent and
> deceleration than any other plane I've flown. There is nothing to help
> the pilot slow down. No gear to drop, very low flap speed and flaps
> that don't add much drag, and you can't even push the prop forward
> without powering up.

Perhaps a mod needs to be made, either as a factory standard, or as and add on
STC modification, for a simple speed brake?

As you say, it would not be necessary for an experience pilot, but seeing who is
mainly flying them, .....
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote

> A quick NTSB database search shows in the last six months 4 accidents (2
> fatal) involving a Cirrus SR20, and 52 (5 fatal) involving a Cessna 172. The
> SR22 was involved in 7 accidents (2 fatal), while the Cessna 182 was involved
> in 36 (6 fatal).

Clue - Look at fleet size, then adjust for that, and come back with some more
meaningful statistics.

How many bazillion C172's are there out there, vs. Cirrus?
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>>So, it seems to me that before we start throwing around statements like
>>"the
>>problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes", it ought to be established
>>that there *is* a problem in the first place.
>
> Pete, from the reports I have seen about Cirrus crashes it is clearly
> pilot error. Of course the same probably applies to all aircraft
> types.

Yes, it does. I guess I should clarify that I am interpreting the statement
"the problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes" to mean that the Cirrus
has an unusual problem with the pilots as compared to other airplanes. I
agree that the statement "the problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes"
applies to pretty much any airplane. In that respect, the Cirrus is no
different from any other similar airplanes.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Clue - Look at fleet size, then adjust for that, and come back with some
> more meaningful statistics.

The fleet size isn't nearly as relevant as total flight hours for the flight
over a span of time. And yes, I agree that the data is missing. However,
none of you have provided alternate data to support the claim that the
Cirrus is actually worse. And at first glance, the total number of Cirrus
accidents is MUCH lower than for Cessna accidents, which is exactly what one
would expect given the difference in fleet sizes.

Clue: when you are making accusations, the burden of proof is on YOU. If
you're going to claim that the accident rate is abnormally high, you need to
provide data to support that claim. Suggesting that the defense has
insufficient data isn't meaningful.

Pete

[Ron Lee]

"Morgans" > wrote:

>"Michael" > wrote
>
>> Probably the biggest issue with it
>> is slowing it down - it requires more planning on the descent and
>> deceleration than any other plane I've flown. There is nothing to help
>> the pilot slow down. No gear to drop, very low flap speed and flaps
>> that don't add much drag, and you can't even push the prop forward
>> without powering up.
>
>Perhaps a mod needs to be made, either as a factory standard, or as and add on
>STC modification, for a simple speed brake?
>
>As you say, it would not be necessary for an experience pilot, but seeing who is
>mainly flying them, .....
>--
>Jim in NC

My guess based upon recollection of several events is not that
problems are speed related but just poor judgement about when they
should be flying.

1) Night flight over mountainous terrain, high winds and turbulence.

2) Took off into IMC and deployed chute within minutes of take-off.

3) Apparent flight into forecast icing conditions

4) Flew into a building in NYC (idiot)

5) Apparently flew into amn area of forecast icing conditions.

There was a crash in late September in Colorado. Sounds like icing
conditions may have been a factor there as well:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060925X01387&key=1

Cirrus pilots are free to go and kill themselves as long as it does
not affect my insurance rate. But quit taking people with you.

Ron Lee

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:26:33 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:

>
>"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>> With the recent spate of Cirrus accidents, the question arises, "Is it
>> time for a special certification review?"
>>
>
>Any aircraft has a baseline accident rate. I think the Cirrus has a higher
>accident rate because a handful of pilots get themselves into a mindset
>where they are willing to enter conditions they would have not entered
>without the big round "insurance policy". Often they get away with pushing
>things. Sometimes they don't, and those accidents are the ones that are
>taking the Cirrus accident rate to higher than predicted levels.
>
>The problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes.

I agree.

This discussion has come up at least twice a year since the SR-20 and
22 came out.

The SR-22 is a capable airplane. It has the BRS for "just in case", it
has the weeping wing deice for "just in case". It's not for know
icing, but just in case, it has the simple (er) set of engine and prop
controls, and it has fixed gear. BUT it has high wing loading. A
fair amount higher than most fixed gear pilots are used to and
noticeable heavier than a Bo. SR-22 loading is about 23.5 while the Bo
is on the order as about the same as a Cherokee at 17.2. The Bo wing
loading covers a wide rage from about 16 to 19# per sq ft. It's one
whale of a lot slipperier though than the Cherokee though.
This is almost 32% heavier loading compared to the Cherokee and the
lighter Bonanzas and Debonairs. That is not to be taken lightly and
there is no pun intended. Over a 30% change in wing loading is a
serious change particularly for low time pilots.

I thought I'd take the easy way out and do a quick search instead of
calculating a bunch of wing loadings. The first thing that came up
was: http://www.aviation-pilots.com/construct/thread41.html
Then I noted who did the calculations. Careful what you say as it's
sometimes surprising as to where it shows up. <:-))

At any rate, the SR-22 has all these whiz bang safety features AND
it's fixed gear, but it has the performance of a Bonanza with up to
30% heavier wing loading. The safety features are great, but here we
have an airplane that is meant for, or should be meant for experienced
pilots used to high performance be it fixed or retract gear.

Put all these features in a plane and then put the typical pilot with
a fixed gear mentality behind the yoke and it could be a recipe for
disaster. I mean no disrespect to fixed gear pilots. The typical fixed
gear pilot moving to the SR-22 would be akin to me moving to a TBM-700
or 850 One is a pilot with a 130 MPH mind moving to a 200 MPH airplane
while I'd be the pilot with a 200 MPH mind moving to a 360 MPH
airplane. OTOH I do have at least a little experience with faster
planes with much higher wing loading, but not enough to be safe
though.

My point is that even with all the training provided and *required*
the pilots *appear* "to me" to be flying a 200 MPH high performance
airplane as if it were a 130 MPH airplane. As a purely personal
opinion, I think they should forget it has a fixed gear and fly it as
if it were a retract.
>
Actually I think the retract has an advantage. The SR-22 is slippery
with a high wing loading. In a Bonanza if you get into trouble they
tell you to put the gear down and forget the doors. When the gear goes
down even at pattern speed it feels like some one put the brakes on
although the brakes with those tires don't have that much authority on
the runway. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Happy Dog]

"john smith" > wrote in

> With the recent spate of Cirrus accidents, the question arises, "Is it
> time for a special certification review?"

Absolutely. Spending millions of dollars is justified whenever any idiot
whines that there's an issue that can be resolved by political action.

Answer your own question.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> Any aircraft has a baseline accident rate. I think the Cirrus has a
>>> higher accident rate because a handful of pilots get themselves into a
>>> mindset where they are willing to enter conditions they would have not
>>> entered without the big round "insurance policy". Often they get away
>>> with pushing things. Sometimes they don't, and those accidents are the
>>> ones that are taking the Cirrus accident rate to higher than predicted
>>> levels.
>>>
>>> The problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes.
>>
>> I've yet to see anyone document an accident rate that is actually higher
>> than might be expected (never mind "predicted"...who has predicted a
>> specific accident rate for the Cirrus, and why should we believe that
>> prediction?).
>>
>> A quick NTSB database search shows in the last six months 4 accidents (2
>> fatal) involving a Cirrus SR20, and 52 (5 fatal) involving a Cessna 172.
>> The SR22 was involved in 7 accidents (2 fatal), while the Cessna 182 was
>> involved in 36 (6 fatal).
>>
>> One might say that the fatal accident rate seems disproportionate (50% of
>> the SR20, 25% for the SR22 versus 10% for the 172 and 20% for the 182),
>> but at the sample sizes present, there's absolutely no reasonable way to
>> draw any valid statistical conclusion (and note that for the SR22 and the
>> 182, the rates are actually similar).
>
> Apples and oranges. The 182 fleet is many times larger than the SR22
> fleet. And the 172 fleet is near infinite compared to the Cirrus fleet.
> The numbers look pretty bad for Cirrus.

Did you adjust for the kind of flying done by each? No, you didn't.

moo

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:

> A quick NTSB database search shows in the last six months 4 accidents
> (2 fatal) involving a Cirrus SR20, and 52 (5 fatal) involving a
> Cessna 172. The SR22 was involved in 7 accidents (2 fatal), while the
> Cessna 182 was involved in 36 (6 fatal).
>
> One might say that the fatal accident rate seems disproportionate
> (50% of the SR20, 25% for the SR22 versus 10% for the 172 and 20% for
> the 182), but at the sample sizes present, there's absolutely no
> reasonable way to draw any valid statistical conclusion (and note
> that for the SR22 and the 182, the rates are actually similar).
>
> The fact is, none of these airplanes are actually involved in fatal
> accidents all that often, and the absolute numbers for overall
> accidents are significantly lower for the Cirrus types than for
> comparable Cessna types (of course, with a presumably much smaller
> fleet size, that's to be expected, even without accounting for
> differences in utilization).
>
Without the total fleet numbers, it is difficult to establish a
proportionate accident rate, but there is face validity to the notion that
the Cessna accident rate is far lower than Cirrus', given other methods of
comparison such as time flown per type or number of TOs & Landings.
Looking only at the type of accidents, one may conclude that pilot error
is the primary cause for either make of plane.

Neil




> So, it seems to me that before we start throwing around statements
> like "the problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes", it ought to
> be established that there *is* a problem in the first place.
>
> Pete

[Matt Whiting]

Aluckyguess wrote:
> Looks like the Cirrus just gets more puplicity than the rest. I think its
> because of the chute. They figure it shoudn't crash.
>
>

I think that is some truth to that. I'm waiting for the lawsuit about
the chute that didn't save someone's loved one from themselves. Just as
Piper was sued over their automatic gear extension system and quit using
it, I suspect it is just a matter of time for Cirrus.

Our legal system is completely dysfunctional.

Matt

[Thomas Borchert]

Newps,

> Cue Mr. Borchert, main Cirrus apologist.
>

Just out of curiosity: What is the purpose of your post? To stifle
sensible discussion in this group even further? Have I at any point
raised unreasonable points that I was not able to substantiate by fact
about the Cirrus at any time? If so, please point them out to me.

This group is really going downhill fast, if differing opinions backed
up by facts are now considered to be a no-no.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:

> In a Bonanza if you get into trouble they
> tell you to put the gear down and forget the doors. When the gear goes
> down even at pattern speed it feels like some one put the brakes on
> although the brakes with those tires don't have that much authority on
> the runway. <:-))

The best way to slow a retract down is to put the gear down in the air, and
pick it up again in the flare. :-)

[john smith]

In article >,
"Kyle Boatright" > wrote:

> Flying magazine (or AOPA?.. dunno) ran the numbers a year or so ago and
> compared the accident rate between Cirrus and competitive models. I don't
> have a copy at hand, but there was a significant difference in accidents
> with Cirrus having a much higher rate than the other A/C.

And in the past year, the numbers have gotten worse.
Accidents and incidents (from theFAA and NTSB databases)
1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
SR20 1 0 2 3 0 1 2 7
SR22 - - 2 2 3 8 12 15

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Thomas Borchert > posted:

> Newps,
>
>> Cue Mr. Borchert, main Cirrus apologist.
>>
>
> Just out of curiosity: What is the purpose of your post? To stifle
> sensible discussion in this group even further? Have I at any point
> raised unreasonable points that I was not able to substantiate by fact
> about the Cirrus at any time? If so, please point them out to me.
>
> This group is really going downhill fast, if differing opinions backed
> up by facts are now considered to be a no-no.
>
This is not a new phenomenon around here, Thomas. We just seem to be
getting more sensitive to it, perhaps because of the greatly increased
traffic, one of the better outcomes of Mxsmanic's posts, IMO.

Neil

[Jose[_1_]]

> And in the past year, the numbers have gotten worse.
> Accidents and incidents (from theFAA and NTSB databases)
> 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
> SR20 1 0 2 3 0 1 2 7
> SR22 - - 2 2 3 8 12 15

We don't know if these are "worse" without knowing fleet size and hours
flown for those years.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Kyle Boatright]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
>
>> Flying magazine (or AOPA?.. dunno) ran the numbers a year or so ago and
>> compared the accident rate between Cirrus and competitive models. I
>> don't
>> have a copy at hand, but there was a significant difference in accidents
>> with Cirrus having a much higher rate than the other A/C.
>
> And in the past year, the numbers have gotten worse.
> Accidents and incidents (from theFAA and NTSB databases)
> 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
> SR20 1 0 2 3 0 1 2 7
> SR22 - - 2 2 3 8 12 15

As someone else pointed out, you have to consider the number of aircraft in
service and, even better, estimate the fleet hours for the time period. The
article I mentioned attempted to do those things. A simple count of
accidents won't.

KB

[Peter R.]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> This group is really going downhill fast, if differing opinions backed
> up by facts are now considered to be a no-no.

It ebbs and flows like a large body of water. Some weeks are good, others
are tough.

I always enjoy reading your perspective on these aircraft.

--
Peter

[[email protected]]

john smith > wrote:
> With the recent spate of Cirrus accidents, the question arises, "Is it
> time for a special certification review?"

For an unrelated project, I downloaded the FAA aircraft registration
database a couple of weeks ago. (Available at:
http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/releasable_aircraft_download/ )
I just did a couple of quick queries on it that might help answer the
question of what the Cirrus fleet size is.

Total Cirrus Design SR-20 entries in the master file: 597
Total Cirrus Design SR-22 entries in the master file: 2022

SR-20 entries in master file, listed by airworthiness date:

39 (blank)
1 1981
1 1997
5 1999
78 2000
46 2001
84 2002
96 2003
78 2004
86 2005
83 2006

If you assume that each aircraft went into service the year of its
airworthiness date, you can get the fleet size by year:

End Fleet
of size
1997 2
1999 7
2000 85
2001 131
2002 215
2003 311
2004 389
2005 475
2006 558 (through early October)

SR-22 entries in master file, listed by airworthiness date:

174 (blank)
121 2001
262 2002
304 2003
431 2004
442 2005
288 2006

Fleet size by year:

End Fleet
of size
2001 121
2002 383
2003 687
2004 1118
2005 1560
2006 1848 (through early October)

As a comparison, I did the same queries for the Cessna 172, including
the models 172, 172[ABCDEFGHIJKLMNPQRS], 172RG, P172D, R172[EGHJK],
T172, and CE-172-R172. Because this covers a much longer period of
time, some of the assumptions above are not as likely to be valid.

Total Cessna 172 entries in the master file: 26697

Cessna 172 entries in master file, listed by airworthiness date:

1825 (blank)
13 (garbled)
79 1955
780 1956
540 1957
447 1958
517 1959
494 1960
457 1961
448 1962
608 1963
782 1964
901 1965
909 1966
507 1967
765 1968
721 1969
438 1970
463 1971
625 1972
979 1973
1065 1974
1202 1975
1387 1976
1430 1977
1289 1978
1294 1979
880 1980
725 1981
248 1982
163 1983
159 1984
157 1985
97 1986
23 1987
27 1988
41 1989
42 1990
21 1991
38 1992
49 1993
41 1994
48 1995
48 1996
228 1997
344 1998
381 1999
385 2000
295 2001
291 2002
277 2003
216 2004
312 2005
196 2006

Fleet size by year:

End Fleet
of size
1955 79
1956 859
1957 1399
1958 1846
1959 2363
1960 2857
1961 3314
1962 3762
1963 4370
1964 5152
1965 6053
1966 6962
1967 7469
1968 8234
1969 8955
1970 9393
1971 9856
1972 10481
1973 11460
1974 12525
1975 13727
1976 15114
1977 16544
1978 17833
1979 19127
1980 20007
1981 20732
1982 20980
1983 21143
1984 21302
1985 21459
1986 21556
1987 21579
1988 21606
1989 21647
1990 21689
1991 21710
1992 21748
1993 21797
1994 21838
1995 21886
1996 21934
1997 22162
1998 22506
1999 22887
2000 23272
2001 23567
2002 23858
2003 24135
2004 24351
2005 24663
2006 24859 (through early October)

Matt Roberds

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:10:46 GMT, wrote:

> If you assume that each aircraft went into service the year of its
> airworthiness date, you can get the fleet size by year:

Actually, that date (fields 229-236) relates more to the current owner, than the
manufacture date. My airplane, for example, was built in 1982 but the
Certificate Issue Date is when I registered the aircraft in 1996.

Fields 52-55 contain the official "Year Manufactured." Unless the FAA has
revamped its file format, in which case I am going to be well and truly ticked
off (since I have a ton of queries, etc. that would have to be altered to match
while maintaining their compatibility with previous years).

The effect of using the Certificate Issue Date would be to skew the results
towards later years, since a, say 1998 plane sold to someone in 2004 would show
as a 2004 model.

Nice idea, though...re-run your query using the Year Manufactured, and let's
have another look at the data.

Ron Wanttaja

[Howard Nelson]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>So, it seems to me that before we start throwing around statements like
> >>"the
> >>problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes", it ought to be
established
> >>that there *is* a problem in the first place.
> >
> > Pete, from the reports I have seen about Cirrus crashes it is clearly
> > pilot error. Of course the same probably applies to all aircraft
> > types.
>
> Yes, it does. I guess I should clarify that I am interpreting the
statement
> "the problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes" to mean that the
Cirrus
> has an unusual problem with the pilots as compared to other airplanes. I
> agree that the statement "the problem is with the pilots, not the
airplanes"
> applies to pretty much any airplane. In that respect, the Cirrus is no
> different from any other similar airplanes.
>
> Pete

I guess that is why they have type ratings. Rather than a certification
review should there be a "type rating" required for a Cirrus. Wouldn't that
be a slippery slope.:)

Howard

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:06:04 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>
>> In a Bonanza if you get into trouble they
>> tell you to put the gear down and forget the doors. When the gear goes
>> down even at pattern speed it feels like some one put the brakes on
>> although the brakes with those tires don't have that much authority on
>> the runway. <:-))
>
>The best way to slow a retract down is to put the gear down in the air, and
>pick it up again in the flare. :-)

I know it works in the air, but I'd as soon pass on trying the other
part<:-)) A few years back we had a Mooney come in gear up. He said
it collapsed, but I think it collapsed trying to jack the airplane
back up<:-)) At any rate that plane skidded about 2500 feed down the
runway before sliding off into the grass where it quickly stopped. I
don't normally use that much runway without ever touching the brakes.
BTW it was their first flight after the annual.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jose[_1_]]

Doing a little math:

> And in the past year, the numbers have gotten worse.
> Accidents and incidents (from theFAA and NTSB databases)
> 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
> SR20 1 0 2 3 0 1 2 7
> SR22 - - 2 2 3 8 12 15
TOTAL 1 0 4 5 3 9 14 22
rate (%): 50 0 2 1 .3 .6 .7 1
fleet size: 2 7 206 514 902 1491 1949 2323
SR22 fleet 121 383 687 1180 1560 1848
SR20 fleet 2 7 85 131 215 311 389 475

So, each year a bit less than one percent of the fleet bites it. The
rate seems to be increasing slightly in the last few years, but the
sketchiness of this data precludes a conclusion based on that.

To compare with the Cessna fleet (bearing in mind the errors in the year
data due to registrations), I'll just add the last five years of fleet
size, getting something like 125,000. Five years of accidents at a 3/4%
rate (the last five years of the Cirrus rate, eyeballing it) would imply
something like a thousand C-172 crashes.

So, were there "something like a thousand" C-172 crashes in the last
five years?

Jose

Fleet info source from 's post Oct 28, 1:10 pm,
summed for SR20 and SR22. I added the total fleet size (by
airworthiness date), figuring it was unlikely that the Cirrus fleet
would have accumulated many date errors yet due to sales.
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave Stadt]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
m...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> Any aircraft has a baseline accident rate. I think the Cirrus has a
>>>> higher accident rate because a handful of pilots get themselves into a
>>>> mindset where they are willing to enter conditions they would have not
>>>> entered without the big round "insurance policy". Often they get away
>>>> with pushing things. Sometimes they don't, and those accidents are the
>>>> ones that are taking the Cirrus accident rate to higher than predicted
>>>> levels.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes.
>>>
>>> I've yet to see anyone document an accident rate that is actually higher
>>> than might be expected (never mind "predicted"...who has predicted a
>>> specific accident rate for the Cirrus, and why should we believe that
>>> prediction?).
>>>
>>> A quick NTSB database search shows in the last six months 4 accidents (2
>>> fatal) involving a Cirrus SR20, and 52 (5 fatal) involving a Cessna 172.
>>> The SR22 was involved in 7 accidents (2 fatal), while the Cessna 182 was
>>> involved in 36 (6 fatal).
>>>
>>> One might say that the fatal accident rate seems disproportionate (50%
>>> of the SR20, 25% for the SR22 versus 10% for the 172 and 20% for the
>>> 182), but at the sample sizes present, there's absolutely no reasonable
>>> way to draw any valid statistical conclusion (and note that for the SR22
>>> and the 182, the rates are actually similar).
>>
>> Apples and oranges. The 182 fleet is many times larger than the SR22
>> fleet. And the 172 fleet is near infinite compared to the Cirrus fleet.
>> The numbers look pretty bad for Cirrus.
>
> Did you adjust for the kind of flying done by each? No, you didn't.
>
> moo

The flights all involve an equal number of takeoffs and landings only some
are more successfull in the landing department than others.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 03:34:05 GMT, Jose > wrote:

> So, each year a bit less than one percent of the fleet bites it. The
> rate seems to be increasing slightly in the last few years, but the
> sketchiness of this data precludes a conclusion based on that.
>
> To compare with the Cessna fleet (bearing in mind the errors in the year
> data due to registrations), I'll just add the last five years of fleet
> size, getting something like 125,000. Five years of accidents at a 3/4%
> rate (the last five years of the Cirrus rate, eyeballing it) would imply
> something like a thousand C-172 crashes.
>
> So, were there "something like a thousand" C-172 crashes in the last
> five years?

From January 1st, 2002 to December 31st, 2004, the GA average fleet accident
rates were as follows:

Overall: 0.58%
Homebuilts: 0.80%
Rotorcraft: 1.63%
Robinson: 3.83%
Cessnas: 0.56%
Cessna 172: 0.62%
Piper: 0.47%
Piper Super Cubs: 1.02%
Beech: 0.45%
Beech 33, 35, & 36: 0.43%

To get the above results, the total number of accidents in the three-year period
were divided by the total aircraft of that type registered on 1 January 2005,
and the result divided by three to produce a yearly average.

Note that the Beech, Cessna, and Piper figures may be artificially low, due to
old aircraft that are still on the registry but not actively flying. Aircraft
can be abandoned or even scrapped without telling the FAA, hence they remain on
the register. The FAA is currently working on weeding out these old
registrations.

I haven't run the fleet accident rates for the Cirrus....guess maybe I'll have
to take a look. If, as you say, the accident rate is about 0.75%, that's in the
ballpark of the 172.

Ron Wanttaja

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

> Doing a little math:
>
>> And in the past year, the numbers have gotten worse.
>> Accidents and incidents (from theFAA and NTSB databases)
>> 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
>> SR20 1 0 2 3 0 1 2 7
>> SR22 - - 2 2 3 8 12 15
>
> TOTAL 1 0 4 5 3 9 14 22
> rate (%): 50 0 2 1 .3 .6 .7 1
> fleet size: 2 7 206 514 902 1491 1949 2323
> SR22 fleet 121 383 687 1180 1560 1848
> SR20 fleet 2 7 85 131 215 311 389 475
>
> So, each year a bit less than one percent of the fleet bites it. The
> rate seems to be increasing slightly in the last few years, but the
> sketchiness of this data precludes a conclusion based on that.

It is good to see some fairly complete data. I agree that the
statistics are such that you can't draw a lot of conclusions as yet, and
when the fleet size was less than 500 it is especially troublesome as a
couple of crashes has a large affect on the percentages. However, as
the fleet has grown beyond 1000 and the rate is increasing nearly
linearly, that is something to be concerned about, in my opinion.


Matt

[[email protected]]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:10:46 GMT, wrote:
>> If you assume that each aircraft went into service the year of its
>> airworthiness date, you can get the fleet size by year:
>
> Actually, that date (fields 229-236) relates more to the current owner,
> than the manufacture date.

That column is labeled as "certificate issue date" in the FAA database
and I agree that it changes more often. That's not what I used, though -
I used the "airworthiness date", positions 266-273. I know of a couple
of aircraft that have changed hands a few times, and the certificate
issue date usually tracks the latest change of ownership, but the
airworthiness date usually corresponds to the original year of
manufacture.

> Fields 52-55 contain the official "Year Manufactured."

Yep, it's still there. I just didn't think of using it when I compiled
the data the first time.

> Nice idea, though...re-run your query using the Year Manufactured, and
> let's have another look at the data.

Here it is, noted with "YOM". I have included the data from my first
post, noted with "A/W", for comparison.

Total Cirrus Design SR-20 entries in the master file: 597
Total Cirrus Design SR-22 entries in the master file: 2022

SR-20 entries in master file, listed by airworthiness date and by year
of manufacture:

A/W YOM
blank 39 39
1981 1 1
1995 0 1
1997 1 0
1998 0 3
1999 5 8
2000 78 78
2001 46 45
2002 84 84
2003 96 94
2004 78 77
2005 86 87
2006 83 80

If you assume that each aircraft went into service the year of its
airworthiness date or in its year of manufacture, you can get the
fleet size by year:

End Fleet size by
of A/W YOM
1997 2 2
1998 2 5
1999 7 13
2000 85 91
2001 131 136
2002 215 220
2003 311 314
2004 389 391
2005 475 478
2006 558 558 (through early October)

SR-22 entries in master file, listed by airworthiness date and by year
of manufacture:

A/W YOM
blank 174 175
2001 121 126
2002 262 267
2003 304 307
2004 431 430
2005 442 445
2006 288 272

Fleet size by year:

End Fleet size by
of A/W YOM
2001 121 126
2002 383 393
2003 687 700
2004 1118 1130
2005 1560 1575
2006 1848 1847 (through early October)

As a comparison, I did the same queries for the Cessna 172, including
the models 172, 172[ABCDEFGHIJKLMNPQRS], 172RG, P172D, R172[EGHJK],
T172, and CE-172-R172. Because this covers a much longer period of
time, some of the assumptions above are not as likely to be valid.

Total Cessna 172 entries in the master file: 26697

Cessna 172 entries in master file, listed by airworthiness date and by
year of manufacture:

A/W YOM
blank 1825 1040
garbled 13 57
1955 79 107
1956 780 956
1957 540 583
1958 447 543
1959 517 566
1960 494 581
1961 457 493
1962 448 509
1963 608 678
1964 782 862
1965 901 1010
1966 909 1069
1967 507 569
1968 765 912
1969 721 708
1970 438 483
1971 463 476
1972 625 658
1973 979 1023
1974 1065 1149
1975 1202 1313
1976 1387 1468
1977 1430 1443
1978 1289 1368
1979 1294 1257
1980 880 811
1981 725 691
1982 248 222
1983 163 87
1984 159 143
1985 157 180
1986 97 81
1987 23 0
1988 27 3
1989 41 0
1990 42 0
1991 21 0
1992 38 0
1993 49 0
1994 41 1
1995 48 0
1996 48 1
1997 228 191
1998 344 293
1999 381 355
2000 385 353
2001 295 267
2002 291 248
2003 277 244
2004 216 181
2005 312 292
2006 196 170

Fleet size by year:

End Fleet size by
of A/W YOM
1955 79 107
1956 859 1063
1957 1399 1646
1958 1846 2189
1959 2363 2755
1960 2857 3336
1961 3314 3829
1962 3762 4338
1963 4370 5016
1964 5152 5878
1965 6053 6888
1966 6962 7957
1967 7469 8526
1968 8234 9438
1969 8955 10146
1970 9393 10629
1971 9856 11105
1972 10481 11763
1973 11460 12786
1974 12525 13935
1975 13727 15248
1976 15114 16716
1977 16544 18159
1978 17833 19527
1979 19127 20784
1980 20007 21595
1981 20732 22286
1982 20980 22508
1983 21143 22595
1984 21302 22738
1985 21459 22918
1986 21556 22999
1987 21579 22999
1988 21606 23002
1989 21647 23002
1990 21689 23002
1991 21710 23002
1992 21748 23002
1993 21797 23002
1994 21838 23003
1995 21886 23003
1996 21934 23004
1997 22162 23195
1998 22506 23488
1999 22887 23843
2000 23272 24196
2001 23567 24463
2002 23858 24711
2003 24135 24955
2004 24351 25136
2005 24663 25428
2006 24859 25598 (through early October)

John Smith posted the following:

>Accidents and incidents (from theFAA and NTSB databases)
> 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
>SR20 1 0 2 3 0 1 2 7
>SR22 - - 2 2 3 8 12 15

Using that data along with the fleet size data:

SR-20

Fleet % accidents
End size by Acci- by
of A/W YOM dents A/W YOM
1997 2 2 0 0 0
1998 2 5 1 50 20
1999 7 13 0 0 0
2000 85 91 0 0 0
2001 131 136 2 1.5 1.5
2002 215 220 3 1.4 1.3
2003 311 314 0 0 0
2004 389 391 1 0.26 0.26
2005 475 478 2 0.42 0.42
2006 558 558 7 1.3 1.3 (through early October)

SR-22

Fleet % accidents
End size by Acci- by
of A/W YOM dents A/W YOM
2001 121 126 2 1.7 1.6
2002 383 393 2 0.52 0.51
2003 687 700 3 0.44 0.43
2004 1118 1130 8 0.72 0.71
2005 1560 1575 12 0.77 0.76
2006 1848 1847 15 0.81 0.81 (through early October)

Combined SR-20 and SR-22

Fleet % accidents
End size by Acci- by
of A/W YOM dents A/W YOM
1997 2 2 0 0 0
1998 2 5 1 50 20
1999 7 13 0 0 0
2000 85 91 0 0 0
2001 252 262 4 1.6 1.5
2002 598 613 5 0.84 0.82
2003 998 1014 3 0.30 0.30
2004 1507 1521 9 0.59 0.59
2005 2035 2053 14 0.69 0.68
2006 2406 2405 21 0.87 0.87 (through early October)

Finally, taking the combined SR-20 and SR-22 data for 2001-2006, and
applying it to the 172 fleet size, we get an approximate number of
accidents and incidents that would be expected from the 172 fleet, if
the 172 and SR-20/22 have about the same safety record:

Cessna 172

Fleet Expected number of
End size by accidents by
of A/W YOM A/W YOM
2001 23567 24463 374 373
2002 23858 24711 199 202
2003 24135 24955 72.6 73.8
2004 24351 25136 145 149
2005 24663 25428 170 173
2006 24859 25598 217 224 (through early October)

Matt Roberds

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:37:47 -0700, I wrote:

> I haven't run the fleet accident rates for the Cirrus....guess maybe I'll have
> to take a look. If, as you say, the accident rate is about 0.75%, that's in the
> ballpark of the 172.

Just completed a cursory look at the accident data.

A summary on the process: I previously downloaded the NTSB accident report
databases for the years 2002, 2003, and 2004 and developed various database
queries to allow analysis of accident causes. I've also downloaded the FAA
registration database every January for the past ~7 years. I have developed
various tools to allow comparison of accident rates.

Rather than compare the Cirrus accident rate to those of the overall fleet of
Cessna 172s, I have compared it only to the accidents involving 172s
manufactured since 1994 (yes, production started a few year after this point).
I have included any Cessna 172 listed with a post-1994 manufacture date, PLUS
all Cessna 172R and 172S models since the year of manufacture is not always
available).

For both aircraft, I have included only those accidents that occurred in the
United States.

After looking at my tools again, I see my earlier posting mis-stated my method
of determining the total fleet size of a particular aircraft. I had stated that
I used the January 2005 FAA registration database to determine the fleet size.
This is incorrect. In reality, my tool determines the *average* of the fleet
size from January 2002 to December 2004. It is this average that is used to
calculate the fleet accident rate.

There are other ways of making these determinations, but it by using the same
processes for both types of aircraft, the *relative* rates for each can be
obtained.

Ah, the heck with it...on to the data:

Cirrus Accidents during subject period: 20 (over a 3-year period)
Late-model 172 Accidents: 103(over a 3-year period)

Average Cirrus Fleet Size: 783 aircraft
Average Late-model 172 Fleet Size: 1993 aircraft

Average ANNUAL Fleet Accident Rates:
Cirrus: 0.85%
Late-Model 172: 1.72%

However, here's an interesting point: The C172 is used for instruction, while
the Cirrus is not. The NTSB lists none of the 20 Cirrus accidents as occurring
during instruction, while 68 of the late-model 172s are so listed.

If you eliminate the instruction accidents from the late-model 172 accidents,
the 172 rate drops to 0.59% *if* you assume the same fleet size. However, to be
an honest comparison, the fleet size would have to address only those aircraft
flown for personal pleasure or business...an almost impossible task. In any
case, the fleet rate would be higher.

From this data, I don't think the Cirrus rate stands out excessively.

Ron Wanttaja

[John Clear]

In article >,
Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>Average ANNUAL Fleet Accident Rates:
>Cirrus: 0.85%
>Late-Model 172: 1.72%
>
>However, here's an interesting point: The C172 is used for instruction, while
>the Cirrus is not. The NTSB lists none of the 20 Cirrus accidents as occurring
>during instruction, while 68 of the late-model 172s are so listed.
>
>If you eliminate the instruction accidents from the late-model 172 accidents,
>the 172 rate drops to 0.59% *if* you assume the same fleet size. However, to be
>an honest comparison, the fleet size would have to address only those aircraft
>flown for personal pleasure or business...an almost impossible task. In any
>case, the fleet rate would be higher.
>
>From this data, I don't think the Cirrus rate stands out excessively.

How does the Cirrus rate compare to the late model 182 accident
rate, or the late model Bonanza accident rate? Those are more
likely to be used for travel, like most Cirrus planes.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Happy Dog]

"Dave Stadt" >
>>>> One might say that the fatal accident rate seems disproportionate (50%
>>>> of the SR20, 25% for the SR22 versus 10% for the 172 and 20% for the
>>>> 182), but at the sample sizes present, there's absolutely no reasonable
>>>> way to draw any valid statistical conclusion (and note that for the
>>>> SR22 and the 182, the rates are actually similar).
>>>
>>> Apples and oranges. The 182 fleet is many times larger than the SR22
>>> fleet. And the 172 fleet is near infinite compared to the Cirrus fleet.
>>> The numbers look pretty bad for Cirrus.
>>
>> Did you adjust for the kind of flying done by each? No, you didn't.

> The flights all involve an equal number of takeoffs and landings only some
> are more successfull in the landing department than others.

Unless you wish to redefine "flight" , no, they don't. Are circuits
"flights"?

moo

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:33:40 +0000 (UTC), (John
Clear) wrote:

> In article >,
> Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> >Average ANNUAL Fleet Accident Rates:
> >Cirrus: 0.85%
> >Late-Model 172: 1.72%
>
> How does the Cirrus rate compare to the late model 182 accident
> rate, or the late model Bonanza accident rate? Those are more
> likely to be used for travel, like most Cirrus planes.

Good suggestion. I ran the new production 182 figures, as it's fixed gear like
the Cirrus. Average of 1154 aircraft during the 2002-2004 period, 26 accidents,
average fleet accident rate of 0.75% per year. Slightly better than the Cirrus,
but still pretty close.

Ron Wanttaja

[Dave Stadt]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
m...
> "Dave Stadt" >
>>>>> One might say that the fatal accident rate seems disproportionate (50%
>>>>> of the SR20, 25% for the SR22 versus 10% for the 172 and 20% for the
>>>>> 182), but at the sample sizes present, there's absolutely no
>>>>> reasonable way to draw any valid statistical conclusion (and note that
>>>>> for the SR22 and the 182, the rates are actually similar).
>>>>
>>>> Apples and oranges. The 182 fleet is many times larger than the SR22
>>>> fleet. And the 172 fleet is near infinite compared to the Cirrus fleet.
>>>> The numbers look pretty bad for Cirrus.
>>>
>>> Did you adjust for the kind of flying done by each? No, you didn't.
>
>> The flights all involve an equal number of takeoffs and landings only
>> some are more successfull in the landing department than others.
>
> Unless you wish to redefine "flight" , no, they don't. Are circuits
> "flights"?
>
> moo

I suspect so. Unless one just motors around on the ground in a big
rectangle.

[Happy Dog]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote
>>>>>> One might say that the fatal accident rate seems disproportionate
>>>>>> (50% of the SR20, 25% for the SR22 versus 10% for the 172 and 20% for
>>>>>> the 182), but at the sample sizes present, there's absolutely no
>>>>>> reasonable way to draw any valid statistical conclusion (and note
>>>>>> that for the SR22 and the 182, the rates are actually similar).
>>>>>
>>>>> Apples and oranges. The 182 fleet is many times larger than the SR22
>>>>> fleet. And the 172 fleet is near infinite compared to the Cirrus
>>>>> fleet. The numbers look pretty bad for Cirrus.
>>>>
>>>> Did you adjust for the kind of flying done by each? No, you didn't.
>>
>>> The flights all involve an equal number of takeoffs and landings only
>>> some are more successfull in the landing department than others.
>>
>> Unless you wish to redefine "flight" , no, they don't. Are circuits
>> "flights"?

> I suspect so. Unless one just motors around on the ground in a big
> rectangle.

Which would be redefining "circuits". So the flights don't "all involve an
equal number of takeoffs and landings". Your desire to engage in semantics
aside, Cirruses are not training aircraft. So a direct comparison of
"numbers" is really telling us enough about the safety of each plane.
Either way.

moo

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

> From this data, I don't think the Cirrus rate stands out excessively.
>

Dick Collins did the same analysis for new 182s and Cirrus. Same
result.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jose[_1_]]

> Which would be redefining "circuits". So the flights don't "all involve an
> equal number of takeoffs and landings".

How so? Is there an accumulation of aircraft in the sky (or on the
ground) when one does circuits? When I do them, the number of takeoffs
does in fact equal the number of landings. I just do more of them.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Dohm]

>
> > From this data, I don't think the Cirrus rate stands out excessively.
> >
>
> Dick Collins did the same analysis for new 182s and Cirrus. Same
> result.
>

It does seem like the parachute, an occasional a celebrity, amd the
inconsistancy of small samples have simply increased the hype factor.

Peter

[Dave Stadt]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
m...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote
>>>>>>> One might say that the fatal accident rate seems disproportionate
>>>>>>> (50% of the SR20, 25% for the SR22 versus 10% for the 172 and 20%
>>>>>>> for the 182), but at the sample sizes present, there's absolutely no
>>>>>>> reasonable way to draw any valid statistical conclusion (and note
>>>>>>> that for the SR22 and the 182, the rates are actually similar).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apples and oranges. The 182 fleet is many times larger than the SR22
>>>>>> fleet. And the 172 fleet is near infinite compared to the Cirrus
>>>>>> fleet. The numbers look pretty bad for Cirrus.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you adjust for the kind of flying done by each? No, you didn't.
>>>
>>>> The flights all involve an equal number of takeoffs and landings only
>>>> some are more successfull in the landing department than others.
>>>
>>> Unless you wish to redefine "flight" , no, they don't. Are circuits
>>> "flights"?
>
>> I suspect so. Unless one just motors around on the ground in a big
>> rectangle.
>
> Which would be redefining "circuits". So the flights don't "all involve
> an equal number of takeoffs and landings".

They most certainly do. How can one make one takeoff and less than or more
than one associated landing, excluding the occasional bounce.

Your desire to engage in semantics
> aside, Cirruses are not training aircraft.

Why not. I suspect with the insurance requirements involved they are used
quite frequently in a training environment.

So a direct comparison of
> "numbers" is really telling us enough about the safety of each plane.
> Either way.
>
> moo
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> It does seem like the parachute, an occasional a celebrity, amd the
> inconsistancy of small samples have simply increased the hype factor.
>

I'd say so. But mind you, saying so already made me an "apologist"
here. Which brings me to another reason for the increase, with regard
to the pilot community, not the media: the introduction of <gasp>
"something new" (tm).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Happy Dog]

"Jose" >
>> Which would be redefining "circuits". So the flights don't "all involve
>> an equal number of takeoffs and landings".
>
> How so? Is there an accumulation of aircraft in the sky (or on the
> ground) when one does circuits? When I do them, the number of takeoffs
> does in fact equal the number of landings. I just do more of them.

But every takeoff and landing isn't a separate flight.

m

[Jose[_1_]]

>>>Which would be redefining "circuits". So the flights don't "all involve
>>>>> an equal number of takeoffs and landings".
>>
>>>
>>> How so? Is there an accumulation of aircraft in the sky (or on the
>>> ground) when one does circuits? When I do them, the number of takeoffs
>>> does in fact equal the number of landings. I just do more of them.
>
>
> But every takeoff and landing isn't a separate flight.

It could be. But even if not, for every landing that is not "the end of
the flight" there is a takeoff that is not "the beginning of the
flight". They will still equal.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Dohm]

> > It does seem like the parachute, an occasional a celebrity, amd the
> > inconsistancy of small samples have simply increased the hype factor.
> >
>
> I'd say so. But mind you, saying so already made me an "apologist"
> here. Which brings me to another reason for the increase, with regard
> to the pilot community, not the media: the introduction of <gasp>
> "something new" (tm).
>

That's a really good point, and the specter of being thought of as an
apologist for an airplane that I really don't like does hang over me quite
heavily. ;->

I suppose that I should be grateful that the safety record is approximately
average instead of demonstrably above average, just to avoid the apologist
label, but I'm not. I'm just not sold on the lack of demonstrated spin
recovery (with the chute as a backup) and the controls felt awkward and
possibly tiring when I sat in one on static display.

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Dohm wrote:
>>>From this data, I don't think the Cirrus rate stands out excessively.
>>>
>>
>>Dick Collins did the same analysis for new 182s and Cirrus. Same
>>result.
>>
>
>
> It does seem like the parachute, an occasional a celebrity, amd the
> inconsistancy of small samples have simply increased the hype factor.

I'm sure that is the case. Then again, if a chute equipped airplane has
the same accident rate as a traditional design, I think one must
question the value of having the chute and its associated cost and weight.


Matt

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>>>>From this data, I don't think the Cirrus rate stands out excessively.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Dick Collins did the same analysis for new 182s and Cirrus. Same
>>>result.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It does seem like the parachute, an occasional a celebrity, amd the
>> inconsistancy of small samples have simply increased the hype factor.
>
> I'm sure that is the case. Then again, if a chute equipped airplane has
> the same accident rate as a traditional design, I think one must question
> the value of having the chute and its associated cost and weight.

It makes the pax happy. I have one in my ultralight and I've always thought
that the odds of it being the right choice in an emergency are very slim.
Of course, the people saved by them would probably install one again at
twice the cost...

moo

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>> It does seem like the parachute, an occasional a celebrity, amd the
>> inconsistancy of small samples have simply increased the hype factor.
>
> I'm sure that is the case. Then again, if a chute equipped airplane has
> the same accident rate as a traditional design, I think one must question
> the value of having the chute and its associated cost and weight.

Given that the types of accidents that the parachute is intended to address
are exceedingly rare even in non-equipped airplanes, I would find it VERY
surprising if the overall accident rate was noticeably affected by the
presence of the parachute.

In fact, it is the rarity of those accidents itself that in my opinion calls
into question the value of having the parachute and its added cost and
weight, rather than the lack of a change in accident rate.

Pete

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>It does seem like the parachute, an occasional a celebrity, amd the
>>>inconsistancy of small samples have simply increased the hype factor.
>>
>>I'm sure that is the case. Then again, if a chute equipped airplane has
>>the same accident rate as a traditional design, I think one must question
>>the value of having the chute and its associated cost and weight.
>
>
> Given that the types of accidents that the parachute is intended to address
> are exceedingly rare even in non-equipped airplanes, I would find it VERY
> surprising if the overall accident rate was noticeably affected by the
> presence of the parachute.
>
> In fact, it is the rarity of those accidents itself that in my opinion calls
> into question the value of having the parachute and its added cost and
> weight, rather than the lack of a change in accident rate.

I think this is just two different ways of saying the same thing! :-)

Matt

[Roger (K8RI)]

Although the SR-22 is fixed gear wouldn't it be more appropriate to
compare them to other planes of similar performance and wing loading?
Then remove the "gear up" incidents for the final comparison?

When it comes to performance and handeling the SR-22 is about as far
from a 172 as you can get. I don't know of any "every day" retracts
like the Bo, or Mooney with near the wing loading of the SR-22 and
the 172 can be over 26% less than those at a tad over 14# per sq ft.

Actually both the Mooney and Bo are far easier to slow down even with
the tendency to float by the Mooney and they have roughly 30% less
wing loading than the SR-22.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Ken Reed]

> Actually both the Mooney and Bo are far easier to slow down even with
> the tendency to float by the Mooney and they have roughly 30% less
> wing loading than the SR-22.

Having owned both, I disagree. The Cirrus was easier to slow down than
my 'C' model Mooney. The only reason my 'M' model Mooney is easier to
slow down than the SR-22 is due to the speed brakes.
---
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

--
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:57:50 -0500, "Happy Dog"
> wrote:

>"Jose" >
>>> Which would be redefining "circuits". So the flights don't "all involve
>>> an equal number of takeoffs and landings".
>>
>> How so? Is there an accumulation of aircraft in the sky (or on the
>> ground) when one does circuits? When I do them, the number of takeoffs
>> does in fact equal the number of landings. I just do more of them.
>
>But every takeoff and landing isn't a separate flight.

To me and I believe the FAA defines a flight as the time between take
off and landing, two circuits with touch and goes equals two flights
although you only make the one entry in the log book.


>
>m
>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:18:38 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> It does seem like the parachute, an occasional a celebrity, amd the
> >> inconsistancy of small samples have simply increased the hype factor.
> >
> > I'm sure that is the case. Then again, if a chute equipped airplane has
> > the same accident rate as a traditional design, I think one must question
> > the value of having the chute and its associated cost and weight.
>
> Given that the types of accidents that the parachute is intended to address
> are exceedingly rare even in non-equipped airplanes, I would find it VERY
> surprising if the overall accident rate was noticeably affected by the
> presence of the parachute.

I think that the type of event the parachute is intended for would likely be an
accident in a non-chute-equipped airplane, as well. Hence the accident rate
*shouldn't* be different... but there hopefully would be an advantage in the
fatality rate.

The fact is that the pilot of a parachute-equipped aircraft has one option more
than the pilot of one that doesn't have a chute. Whether one is willing to
trade *having* that option for increased useful load, more cabin space, or even
improved low-speed handling characteristics is just another example of the kinds
of decisions an airplane buyer must make.

I don't fault a pilot choosing to opt for an airplane with a chute, any more
than I would fault one for selecting a plane with retractable gear. It's their
money. The chute *does* work; it *can* lower the plane to the ground with less
than life-threatening injuries to the occupants. People buy it for peace of
mind, few, if any, expect they'll ever actually have to use it.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jose[_1_]]

> To me and I believe the FAA defines a flight as the time between take
> off and landing, two circuits with touch and goes equals two flights
> although you only make the one entry in the log book.

As far as the FAA is concerned, you can pick just about any takeoff and
any (subsequent) landing and call it a flight.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> The fact is that the pilot of a parachute-equipped aircraft has one option more
> than the pilot of one that doesn't have a chute.

All things being equal, this is the case. But in the Cirrus, all things
aren't equal. You lose the option of standard spin recovery in exchange
for the chute.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 05:13:40 GMT, Jose > wrote:

> > The fact is that the pilot of a parachute-equipped aircraft has one option more
> > than the pilot of one that doesn't have a chute.
>
> All things being equal, this is the case. But in the Cirrus, all things
> aren't equal. You lose the option of standard spin recovery in exchange
> for the chute.

Nope. Just not a spin recovery capability proven in certification. For all any
of us know, a standard recovery will work, especially if initiated early. If it
*doesn't* though, the pilot does have another option.

After all, nothing guarantees that a Cessna 182 will recover from a spin,
either. Yes, it's certified to do so *under particular conditions*. Depart
from those conditions... with a CG aft of the limits, with the airfoils coated
with ice...and there's a good probability that the Cessna won't recover.

The argument about spin certification assumes that Bonanzas, 182, Mooneys, etc.
regularly ENTER and RECOVER from undesired spins. Not just stalls, but *spins*.
I haven't heard that that is the case. Though a lot of those certified-spinning
airplanes are lost in stall/spin accidents.

Heck, I've done it...accidentally spun an airplane. Carrying my first passenger
after getting my Private, no less. But this was a Citabria, not a Centurion.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jim Logajan]

Jose > wrote:
>> The fact is that the pilot of a parachute-equipped aircraft has one
>> option more than the pilot of one that doesn't have a chute.
>
> All things being equal, this is the case. But in the Cirrus, all
> things aren't equal. You lose the option of standard spin recovery in
> exchange for the chute.

It is true that the options aren't equal, but the human _survival_ odds
actually favor the Cirrus than the spin-recoverable plane. Given the same
pilot in either plane, there are theoretically more spin accident scenarios
where the pilot in the Cirrus can come out alive than in the non-chute-
equipped plane. This assumes of course that spin-recoverable plane requires
a higher altitude to recover than successful BRS deployment and that the
pilot in both cases executes the correct recovery sequence in time.

Theoretically, as far as I can tell, there should be a higher probability
of wrecked Cirrus planes relative to spin-recoverable planes _but_ a lower
probability of fatalities relative to the spin-recoverable planes.

Avweb has an article on the recent Cirrus accidents in its latest "issue":

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/733-full.html

Here's an article that discusses the motivation for the chute and why
Cirrus considers the use of CAPS superior to spin recovery:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/chutehappens/qa/index.html

[Happy Dog]

"Jose" > wrote in message
>> To me and I believe the FAA defines a flight as the time between take
>> off and landing, two circuits with touch and goes equals two flights
>> although you only make the one entry in the log book.
>
> As far as the FAA is concerned, you can pick just about any takeoff and
> any (subsequent) landing and call it a flight.

(First person comments not directed at the above poster.)

Or not. Absent culpability, nobody cares. The original poster made some
claim to the effect that hours on Cessnas are similar to hours on Cirruses
when it comes to comparing accident stats. They aren't. If it was cheaper
to own a Cirrus than anything else, almost anyone would own one. I put a
bunch of expensive avionics and a parachute, in an ultralight mostly because
I could afford to. With only a couple adorable exceptions, fellow pilots
all whined about my choices. Who cares?

Did you buy a new Cirrus instead of an old pressurized twin? Did you get
PPL on the way up and then lose interest and get a jet and a crew?

Nobody else's business. When there's a consensus among filthy rich hobby
pilots, I'll be grateful.

moo

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

> You lose the option of standard spin recovery in exchange
> for the chute.
>

Here we go again. You lose certification of recovery from spins by
"standard" methods.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Cubdriver]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:48:19 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:

>I think that the type of event the parachute is intended for would likely be an
>accident in a non-chute-equipped airplane, as well. Hence the accident rate
>*shouldn't* be different... but there hopefully would be an advantage in the
>fatality rate.

The second part ought to be true, but not the first. The Cirrus should
have *more* accidents, because isn't every deployment an accident? I
mean, aren't all Cirrus PLFs (I've been waiting since Fort Bragg to
use that acronym!) going to damage the airplane?

Some or many of those accidents would have been avoided without the
parachute, since the pilot would make an emergency landing, hopefully
without damage to the airplane.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:37:01 -0500, "Happy Dog"
> wrote:

>"Jose" > wrote in message
>>> To me and I believe the FAA defines a flight as the time between take
>>> off and landing, two circuits with touch and goes equals two flights
>>> although you only make the one entry in the log book.
>>
>> As far as the FAA is concerned, you can pick just about any takeoff and
>> any (subsequent) landing and call it a flight.
>
>(First person comments not directed at the above poster.)
>
>Or not. Absent culpability, nobody cares. The original poster made some
>claim to the effect that hours on Cessnas are similar to hours on Cirruses
>when it comes to comparing accident stats. They aren't. If it was cheaper
>to own a Cirrus than anything else, almost anyone would own one. I put a

This might be true in most cases, but not all. One couple was
interested in purchasing an F33 Bo. They flew my Deb and after doing
stalls and finding out how slipery it is, purchased a newer Piper
Archer for more money. They said they decided they wanted to stick
with something simple. Although it has fixed gear and no prop control
the SR-22 is definately not a simple airplane to fly.

>bunch of expensive avionics and a parachute, in an ultralight mostly because
>I could afford to. With only a couple adorable exceptions, fellow pilots
>all whined about my choices. Who cares?
>
>Did you buy a new Cirrus instead of an old pressurized twin? Did you get
>PPL on the way up and then lose interest and get a jet and a crew?
>
>Nobody else's business. When there's a consensus among filthy rich hobby
>pilots, I'll be grateful.
>
>moo
>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 06:35:05 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Jose > wrote:
>>> The fact is that the pilot of a parachute-equipped aircraft has one
>>> option more than the pilot of one that doesn't have a chute.
>>
>> All things being equal, this is the case. But in the Cirrus, all
>> things aren't equal. You lose the option of standard spin recovery in
>> exchange for the chute.
>
>It is true that the options aren't equal, but the human _survival_ odds
>actually favor the Cirrus than the spin-recoverable plane. Given the same

The Cirrus is spin recoverable. As Ron said, it's just not certified
for them.

>pilot in either plane, there are theoretically more spin accident scenarios
>where the pilot in the Cirrus can come out alive than in the non-chute-
>equipped plane. This assumes of course that spin-recoverable plane requires
>a higher altitude to recover than successful BRS deployment and that the
>pilot in both cases executes the correct recovery sequence in time.
>
>Theoretically, as far as I can tell, there should be a higher probability
>of wrecked Cirrus planes relative to spin-recoverable planes _but_ a lower
>probability of fatalities relative to the spin-recoverable planes.
>
>Avweb has an article on the recent Cirrus accidents in its latest "issue":
>
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/733-full.html
>
>Here's an article that discusses the motivation for the chute and why
>Cirrus considers the use of CAPS superior to spin recovery:
>
>http://www.cirrusdesign.com/chutehappens/qa/index.html
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Ron Lee]

Jim Logajan > wrote:

>It is true that the options aren't equal, but the human _survival_ odds
>actually favor the Cirrus than the spin-recoverable plane. Given the same
>pilot in either plane, there are theoretically more spin accident scenarios
>where the pilot in the Cirrus can come out alive than in the non-chute-
>equipped plane.

My view of Cirrus parachute deployments is that they are done not in
response to a spin but pilots getting into avoidable situations that
they elected to deploy the parachute.

Ron Lee

[Jose[_1_]]

>>You lose the option of standard spin recovery in exchange
>> for the chute.
> Nope. Just not a spin recovery capability proven in certification. For all any
> of us know, a standard recovery will work, especially if initiated early. If it
> *doesn't* though, the pilot does have another option.

Well, I suppose you also don't "lose" the option of doing the Tango.
The spin recovery was not proven in certification. If you get into a
spin, you have the option of becoming a test pilot, or of pulling the
chute. In a standard airplane, you have the option of standard spin
recovery (which has been proven to work), or becoming a test pilot.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 05:53:23 -0500, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:48:19 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
> > wrote:
>
> >I think that the type of event the parachute is intended for would likely be an
> >accident in a non-chute-equipped airplane, as well. Hence the accident rate
> >*shouldn't* be different... but there hopefully would be an advantage in the
> >fatality rate.
>
> The second part ought to be true, but not the first. The Cirrus should
> have *more* accidents, because isn't every deployment an accident? I
> mean, aren't all Cirrus PLFs (I've been waiting since Fort Bragg to
> use that acronym!) going to damage the airplane?
>
> Some or many of those accidents would have been avoided without the
> parachute, since the pilot would make an emergency landing, hopefully
> without damage to the airplane.

Perhaps. I am reminded of Chuck Yeager's biography, where he said something
along the lines of "With F-86 engine failures, I did a deadstick landing only if
I was feeling really sharp that day."

None of use have Yeager's skills, though the aircraft we fly aren't nearly as
challenging. But the fact is, many of us *aren't* sharp enough...or lucky
enough...to pull off emergency landings without damage. Some of us kill
ourselves while attempting it.

We have gotten sucked into the "spin certification" vortex again, and lose sight
of the fact that the parachute is a solution to most airborne emergencies. Not
the *best* solution... for myself, I'd rather try land deadstick if the occasion
arises...but it is a lowest common denominator.

Rather than requiring a multitude of skill sets that will fade over time...

- "Trim for best glide speed, start looking for an open field"
- "Throttle back, stick forward, rudder against the spin"
- "Use the doors to turn and the trim to control pitch"
- "Turn the landing light on; if you don't like what you see, turn it off")

.... the parachute system allows the pilot the option of taking ONE action that
will ensure survival in a wide variety of emergencies. And a parachute is
practically the only viable option in a number of circumstances. If the
propeller sheds a blade and the engine shakes itself off the front of the
airplane, no amount of stick-and-rudder skills will help.

Cubdriver's right...a parachute system will turn a potential incident (not
meeting the NTSB Part 830 criteria) into an actual accident. But I'd let the
insurance companies fight that one.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jose[_1_]]

> ... the parachute system allows the pilot the option of taking ONE action that
> will ensure survival in a wide variety of emergencies.

Well, not so fast. The ones that stick out in my mind (of course not a
statistical sample by any means!) involved parachuting into a fuel tank
farm (averted only because the pilot accidentally left the engine
running) and parachuting into water (losing the cushioning ability of
the landing gear). Once you pull the handle, you have little or no
control over the outcome.

All in all, I would tend to doubt the claim that it "ensures survival in
a wide variety of emergencies".

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

> (averted only because the pilot accidentally left the engine
> running)
>

That should read "intentionally".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jose[_1_]]

>>(averted only because the pilot accidentally left the engine
>> running)
> That should read "intentionally".

I'll stand corrected, but my recollection is that it was a lucky oversight.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Dohm]

> >>You lose the option of standard spin recovery in exchange
> >> for the chute.
> > Nope. Just not a spin recovery capability proven in certification. For
all any
> > of us know, a standard recovery will work, especially if initiated
early. If it
> > *doesn't* though, the pilot does have another option.
>
> Well, I suppose you also don't "lose" the option of doing the Tango.
> The spin recovery was not proven in certification. If you get into a
> spin, you have the option of becoming a test pilot, or of pulling the
> chute. In a standard airplane, you have the option of standard spin
> recovery (which has been proven to work), or becoming a test pilot.
>
> Jose
>
All of these points are true, and I think that they narrowly miss a greater
point in both spin avoidance and spin recovery--at least in visual
conditions. That is that a pilot proficient is spins and spin recovery is
much more likely to correctly recognize the problem and immediately take
corrective action; which should be highly effective in any aircraft normally
operated with a PPL. My belief is that any single engine recip (I can't
think of an exception) can be recovered with only a modest loss of altitude
during the first 90 degrees of a spin entry; but that the required
proficiency requires practice and recurrent training which cannot be
conducted in type--in the case that intentional spins are prohibited.

Peter
Just my $.02

[Jose[_1_]]

> but that the required
> proficiency requires practice and recurrent training which cannot be
> conducted in type--in the case that intentional spins are prohibited.

Does the training have to be conducted in type for the pilot to maintain
proficiency? I suspect that spin training in a Citabria would do
wonders for a pilot who has just fallen into a spin in a Cirrus.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john smith]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > but that the required
> > proficiency requires practice and recurrent training which cannot be
> > conducted in type--in the case that intentional spins are prohibited.
>
> Does the training have to be conducted in type for the pilot to maintain
> proficiency? I suspect that spin training in a Citabria would do
> wonders for a pilot who has just fallen into a spin in a Cirrus.

Different aircraft designs may recover differently.
ie... a long wing aircraft may require use of ailerons. Only the
manufacturers spin testing and recommended recovery technique should be
used.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Different aircraft designs may recover differently.
> ie... a long wing aircraft may require use of ailerons.

Ok, fair enough. But if you practice in an aircraft whose technique is
sufficiently similar to that of the target aircraft, you should be fine.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> Different aircraft designs may recover differently.
>> ie... a long wing aircraft may require use of ailerons.
>
> Ok, fair enough. But if you practice in an aircraft whose technique
> is sufficiently similar to that of the target aircraft, you should be
> fine.
>
But, how practical is this? Should one practice spin recovery in an SR20
so that you can feel comfortable in an SR22? ;-)

I can tell you there is little similarity between how the planes I've
flown stall or spin, though they are all basic SEL.

Neil

[Stefan]

Neil Gould schrieb:

> I can tell you there is little similarity between how the planes I've
> flown stall or spin, though they are all basic SEL.

But all respond to the same technique of spin *recovery*, otherwise they
would not have been certified. (Only true for newer airplanes, obviously.)

Stefan

[Peter Dohm]

> > Different aircraft designs may recover differently.
> > ie... a long wing aircraft may require use of ailerons.
>
> Ok, fair enough. But if you practice in an aircraft whose technique is
> sufficiently similar to that of the target aircraft, you should be fine.
>
I really don't know, but believe that you are correct.

Peter

[John Halpenny]

Morgans wrote:
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote
>
> > A quick NTSB database search shows in the last six months 4 accidents (2
> > fatal) involving a Cirrus SR20, and 52 (5 fatal) involving a Cessna 172. The
> > SR22 was involved in 7 accidents (2 fatal), while the Cessna 182 was involved
> > in 36 (6 fatal).
>
> Clue - Look at fleet size, then adjust for that, and come back with some more
> meaningful statistics.
>
> How many bazillion C172's are there out there, vs. Cirrus?

One thing these figures seem to say is that 50% of SR20 accidents are
fatal, but only 10% of 172 accidents are. It is only a bit better if
you compare both Cirrus and Cessna types. The parachute should make
Cirrus accidents more survivable, not less.


John Halpenny

[Larry Dighera]

On 31 Oct 2006 17:28:21 -0800, "John Halpenny" >
wrote in . com>:

>One thing these figures seem to say is that 50% of SR20 accidents are
>fatal, but only 10% of 172 accidents are. It is only a bit better if
>you compare both Cirrus and Cessna types. The parachute should make
>Cirrus accidents more survivable, not less.

What's the SR20's stall speed compared to the C-172? The kinetic
energy expended in a mishap increases exponentially with the square of
the velocity.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:32:26 GMT, Jose > wrote:

> > ... the parachute system allows the pilot the option of taking ONE action that
> > will ensure survival in a wide variety of emergencies.
>
> Well, not so fast. The ones that stick out in my mind (of course not a
> statistical sample by any means!) involved parachuting into a fuel tank
> farm (averted only because the pilot accidentally left the engine
> running) and parachuting into water (losing the cushioning ability of
> the landing gear). Once you pull the handle, you have little or no
> control over the outcome.
>
> All in all, I would tend to doubt the claim that it "ensures survival in
> a wide variety of emergencies".

Yes, bad choice of words on my part. Better would be, maximizes chance of
survival in a wider variety of emergencies.

Certainly there are places you *don't* want to set down on, when you're lacking
control under a parachute. But if it were a choice between landing on a tank
farm under canopy or riding a plane down with a wing missing, I think I'd take
the tank farm.

I cannot think of a *single* case where I wouldn't want the OPTION of activating
an airframe parachute. And that's the point....it's better to have it and not
need it, than to need it and not have it.

I can think of reasons I'd take other actions in particular situations. And
certainly understand that carrying such a chute has performance disadvantages.
I haven't opted for one, but I don't fault folks who decide otherwise.

Ron Wanttaja

[Peter Duniho]

"John Halpenny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> One thing these figures seem to say is that 50% of SR20 accidents are
> fatal, but only 10% of 172 accidents are.

As I pointed out previously, there aren't enough SR20 accidents (or even
SR20 and SR22 combined) to make any valid statistical conclusions. The
statistical error on the sample size exceeds the number of samples.

Pete

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

From googling this group, Ilan Reich, the accident pilot, was quoted
with a detailed account here. That contained the key sentence "On the
descent, I steered the plane clear of a fuel tank farm, and
crash-landed into the water near Haverstraw, NY.". It goes on to
describe in detail how he used throttle bursts to stear clear. The
"lucky oversight" was/may have been that he left the engine running
during chute activation, which is contrary to the recommended
procedure.

You were involved in that thread, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Stefan > posted:

> Neil Gould schrieb:
>
>> I can tell you there is little similarity between how the planes I've
>> flown stall or spin, though they are all basic SEL.
>
> But all respond to the same technique of spin *recovery*, otherwise
> they would not have been certified. (Only true for newer airplanes,
> obviously.)
>
They all respond to different degrees to the same technique of spin
avoidance, but some have a lot more rudder or aileron authority than
others, and require different inputs after entry into a spin. At question
is what inputs are necessary to recover from a spin in a Cirrus?

Neil

[Jose[_1_]]

> Jose,
>
> From googling this group, Ilan Reich, the accident pilot, was quoted
> with a detailed account here. That contained the key sentence "On the
> descent, I steered the plane clear of a fuel tank farm, and
> crash-landed into the water near Haverstraw, NY.". It goes on to
> describe in detail how he used throttle bursts to stear clear. The
> "lucky oversight" was/may have been that he left the engine running
> during chute activation, which is contrary to the recommended
> procedure.
>
> You were involved in that thread, too.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

> Yes, that is exactly what I meant.
>

But the chute activation could have been followed by intentional engine
activation...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jose[_1_]]

> But the chute activation could have been followed by intentional engine
> activation...

Yes, it could have. My reccollection is that it wasn't. I remember
reading that the pilot had inadvertently neglected to turn off the
engine, and then used that fact to his advantage.

There's no windmilling prop if the engine is off, so starting it again
may not have been so simple.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 01:20:54 GMT, Ken Reed > wrote:

>> Actually both the Mooney and Bo are far easier to slow down even with
>> the tendency to float by the Mooney and they have roughly 30% less
>> wing loading than the SR-22.
>
>Having owned both, I disagree. The Cirrus was easier to slow down than
>my 'C' model Mooney. The only reason my 'M' model Mooney is easier to
>slow down than the SR-22 is due to the speed brakes.

I've not flown all models of the Mooney but I stick with the statement
the one I flew was almost as easy to slow down as the Deb. The SR-22
was not. I'd not call the SR-22 difficult to slow down for an
experienced high performance pilot, but I would for a low timer.

When you stick the gear out the retracts feel like some one put the
brakes on. In a circle to land in the Deb you bring in about 23" OTOH
that is keeping it in close and tight turns. Turns are a really good
way to slow down about anything.


>---
>Ken Reed
>M20M, N9124X
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

> so starting it again
> may not have been so simple.
>

Well, it always seems real simple when I do it before taxi ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[anonymousengineeringstudent]

I hate to tell you guys this but you better look more carefully. I am a
mechanical engineering student at a very well known and respected
engineering university (I won't comment on which one because I don't feel
it is ethically correct for this letter). I am currently working full time
in the field of mechanical engineering (not aeronautics yet) and I have
only begun to research a project for an engineering reliability report and
already some pretty clear facts are starting to pop up. It seems that
pilots enter turbulence or icing conditions and that starts to cause
delamination problems with Cirrus's high tech polymer/foam shell.
Hypothetically what might happen next is the pilots try like hell to get
the things under control while they are falling apart in the sky. Again,
hypothesizing, they might try rapid maneuver's to get the plane that is
now falling apart under control and end up stalling out the engine. They
are now completely losing it and instead of trying to glide down to a safe
height and speed to deploy the parachute they deploy at high altitudes and
speeds and the parachute rips away. Who knows maybe they can't get the
plane under enough control to safely deploy the parachute, after all, if
the plane is in the process of delaminating itself (i.e. layers of polymer
ripping away) maybe it is not possible. Now I am not a pilot and as I said
my report is not complete but I can tell you that maybe some people better
start asking the right questions like why is this thing delaminating under
mildly icy conditions. I mean most of these pilots in these accidents were
trying to get away from the clouds and some of them had the de-icing
option?????? Why have a de-icing option if it doesn't work - and
typically most mechanical designs are designed to fail slowly to allow
time to take alternative, life saving action. It seems this failure is
happening way too quickly and without enough of a safety factor for the
possible working environment. I personally love the look and the
"high-tech" of the plane but if I were a pilot this delamination thing
would have me spooked. You guys as pilots should really check out the
NTSB site (http://www.ntsb.gov) before forming an opinion. Of course, as
I said as an engineer I would decline to comment rather than get my rear
in a sling but, as a concerned citizen, you guys should do some more
research before endorsing this plane. Oh by the way the plane does have a
33% higher failure ratio than other planes in the competing class
(http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nyplan124929080oct12,0,415235,email.story?coll=ny-nynews-print).
Again, obviously I really don't know what I am talking about, this is not
an official statement, and all the other disclaimers I can possibly
include but just some information I thought you guys might want to know.

Anonymous Mechanical Engineering Student (senior)

Anonymous Engineering Student

____________________________________
Posted via Aviatorlive.com
http://www.aviatorlive.com

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 22:24:05 -0600, "anonymousengineeringstudent"
> wrote:

>... Again,
>hypothesizing, they might try rapid maneuver's to get the plane that is
>now falling apart under control and end up stalling out the engine.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You do realize this costs you any credibility about aeronautical matters, right?

>I personally love the look and the
>"high-tech" of the plane but if I were a pilot this delamination thing
>would have me spooked. You guys as pilots should really check out the
>NTSB site (http://www.ntsb.gov) before forming an opinion.

I used the NTSB accident page to run a search for Cirrus accidents where the
words "delaminate", "delamination," or "delaminated" appear. I found just one
hit (DEN06FA114) where, by the context, it appears that the parts delaminated on
impact.

In which other accidents did delamination occur?

Ron Wanttaja

[Jose[_1_]]

> ...turbulence or icing conditions and that starts to cause
> delamination problems with Cirrus's high tech polymer/foam shell.

Cite? Upon what do you base these "pretty clear facts"?

> and end up stalling out the engine.

What does the wing delaminating have to do with the engine? And what
does "stall" mean in this context?

To a pilot, these words have different meanings.

> Oh by the way the plane does have a 33% higher failure
> ratio than other planes in the competing class...

Newsday is hardly a reliable source of engineering statistics. And for
an engineering student at a well known and respected university to use
"33% higher failure ratio" (with no numerator or denomenator specified)
is exceptionally sloppy. Perhaps you mean "rate", in which case you
still need to specify "per what" if you want to say something meaningful.

I suspect you mean well, but more care in your dissertation would be
appropriate here.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

anonymousengineeringstudent > wrote:
> I am a mechanical engineering student at a very well known and
> respected engineering university (I won't comment on which one
> because I don't feel it is ethically correct for this letter).

If there's a Computer Science department at your school, or an IT
department that runs the school's computers, you probably want to talk
to them. They should be able to tell you ways to post to Usenet that
can help hide the fact that you're probably posting from a Comcast
cable modem in New Jersey, 68.46.165.176 or
c-68-46-165-176.hsd1.nj.comcast.net .

> I am currently working full time in the field of mechanical
> engineering (not aeronautics yet) and I have only begun to research
> a project for an engineering reliability report and already some
> pretty clear facts are starting to pop up.

Assuming for the moment that you are in New Jersey: Both Princeton and
Rugters list departments or degree programs in "mechanical and aerospace
engineering", which is a slightly different phrasing than "aeronautics".
NJIT and Stevens simply call their programs "mechanical engineering".
Of course, you could be attending some other school in New Jersey, or a
school in a nearby state. Or, maybe you aren't in or near New Jersey at
all.

> Organization: Aviatorlive.com

This site appears to be a sponge site, that is simply a "Usenet for
dummies" web gateway to r.a.p, plus the obligatory Google ads. Running
a search on that site does find your post, but because of the completely
broken threading in the web interface, it won't actually pull up there.

Headers as received here:

---
From Sun Nov 5 23:02:54 2006
Path: be01.lga!hwmnpeer02.lga!hw-filter.lga!hwmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews .com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.c om!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 22:24:05 -0600
From: "anonymousengineeringstudent" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Cirrus... is it time for certification review?
Organization: Aviatorlive.com
User-Agent: Newsraptor Gateway 1.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: >
X-HTTP-Posting-Host: 68.46.165.176
References: >
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 22:24:05 -0600
Lines: 47
X-Trace: sv3-zpDi1mhdPPFjMFKrHGms6+kIMMVeswZVBPi93nZx5d/IAs+TTdeGh3cbCqbGz93LBU3oadKN78vD47Y!aNAhtBVFu9wBs 907rLTgQqGuho7Ls1PplABHQjoAK+55wVkAGFvI1FxOFttUzcF gpCujXLJZZe6Y
X-Complaints-To:
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: Hurricane-Charley rec.aviation.piloting:171176
X-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 21:24:06 MST (be01.lga)
---

Matt Roberds

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

anonymousengineeringstudent wrote:
> I hate to tell you guys this but you better look more carefully. I am a
> mechanical engineering student at a very well known and respected
> engineering university (I won't comment on which one because I don't feel
> it is ethically correct for this letter).

Or more likely, you don't want your professor to find out about your
"thought" process and end up having to become a liberal arts major...

> Again, obviously I really don't know what I am talking about

Oh, we figured that out pretty damn quickly from reading your post...
Hmmm... You would happen to be a WebTV or AOL newbie, would you?

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 20:42:59 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 22:24:05 -0600, "anonymousengineeringstudent"
> wrote:
>
>>... Again,
>>hypothesizing, they might try rapid maneuver's to get the plane that is
>>now falling apart under control and end up stalling out the engine.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>You do realize this costs you any credibility about aeronautical matters, right?

I think it's sung to the tune of "a trolling we will go, a trolling we
will go..."

>
>>I personally love the look and the
>>"high-tech" of the plane but if I were a pilot this delamination thing
>>would have me spooked. You guys as pilots should really check out the
>>NTSB site (http://www.ntsb.gov) before forming an opinion.
>
>I used the NTSB accident page to run a search for Cirrus accidents where the
>words "delaminate", "delamination," or "delaminated" appear. I found just one
>hit (DEN06FA114) where, by the context, it appears that the parts delaminated on
>impact.

Where it's obvious it was not strong enough to withstand the g-forces
of hitting something solid at some where between 150 and 200 MPH.
>
>In which other accidents did delamination occur?
>
>Ron Wanttaja
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Thomas Borchert]

Anonymousengineeringstudent,

> Anonymous Mechanical Engineering Student
>

'nuff said...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)