C J Campbell wrote:
The pilot in Florida had 600 hours in type, was instrument rated, and was a
founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That does not fit the description
of "more money than skill."

I cannot comment on that specific accident, because I don't remember
what happened. Perhaps he was atypical of the "problem" Cirrus pilot.
Perhaps he was the perfect example...I don't know.

What I do know is that the vast majority of accidents in any aircraft
type -- not just Cirrus -- are due to pilot error, and an awful lot of
the well-publicized Cirrus accidents seem to fit into the classic
category of "more money than skill". Call it the "Doctor Killer" syndrome.

The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin or even an incipient spin. Pilots are
supposed to deploy the chute if the Cirrus enters a spin. Fine, if you are
900' AGL or more. Probably more, if the chute takes longer to deploy when
the airplane is in a spin. So a departure stall or approach stall in this
airplane is going to be far more dangerous than in other aircraft.
snip

Where did you hear that the Cirrus is incapable of recovering from a
spin? I thought it was a condition of Part 23 certification that it
recover from a spin, but that it not be "approved" for intentional spins
if the manufacturer did not do the full spin test program. I'm no
certification expert, however, so I could certainly be wrong.

For what it's worth, the Seminole was reportedly never spin tested,
though its twin (the Beech Dutchess) was. Neither are approved for
spins, but at least they will recover from one.

Given that the most common GA accident is low level maneuvering: the slick
design of the Cirrus, the inadequate flaps, the poor stall handling
abilities, pilot unfamiliarity with the new equipment (which also keeps
pilots' eyes inside the cockpit), poor maintenance and quality control, and
the inability of the parachute to deploy at low altitude all seem to me to
add up to a lot of trouble.

Here we find some common ground. Cirrus does have some QC issues.
Diamond does too, for that matter. I'm not sure why maintenance is
suffering (God knows the local Cirrus service center is always packed,
so there is no apparent lack of attention these airplanes receive in the
shop), but mechanical problems remain the cause of a very small
percentage of the total number of accidents.

As for the parachute, I'll go back to my original point -- if I lose an
engine in a twin, I have a chance to bring the aircraft and passengers
home to fly another day. In effect, the other engine is my parachute.
The difference, of course, is that if I pull the chute in a Cirrus, it's
game over for the airplane. IMHO, it shouldn't be so easy to throw away
$300K.

And, on that note, I'll conclude by saying if I were a prospective
Cirrus buyer like Dennis, I'd be very concerned about the inevitable
increase in insurance cost for these airplanes. Pretty soon, having a
partner in a Cirrus won't just be a "nice-to-have" when it comes time to
pay the bills. It will be a requirement.

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------