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