As is the case with the rest of the fleet. The bottom line is you cannot
really know in most cases what makes up the causes in any real way. The
results are not that tough to interpret though. Fatal accidents per 100,000
hours takes all the subjectivity out of the equation.



"Fred Wolf" wrote in message
...
Have any of you actually rad all of the NTSB reports? Most of the
accidents
were hair brained, in my opinion, and not a fault of the plane

FW
"Dude" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Dude,

Cirrus has a poor rating. You can
make excuses all day, but the facts are the facts. They have killed
too
many people in too short of time with too few planes.


Well, then why have we been having this long, long thread? It ain't
that
simple. "The Cirrusses have killed..."??? Come on, you know better.
The
statistics may not look too good for the Cirrus at the moment,
depending
on how you interpret them. Are those statistics significant already
with
a
new aircraft? Some doubt it. Are the underlying reasons clear? Not at
all. Do we know it is something to do with the aircraft? Nope. Do we
know
it is the kind of pilots/owners that are attracted by this aircraft?
Possibly. Have we seen this before with other conceptually new
aircraft?
Yes.

So, your conclusions are a wee bit too simplistic, IMHO.


Perhaps they are. At what point do we say its relevant, and how long do
we
take to see if the trend is improving based on training or other
changes.

I think a million hours is a good number, and if there is not
significant
improvement by the third set of a million hours then they had best
change
the design. That is admittedly a simplistic approach, but I have not
seen
anyone set a more scientific objective standard.

I hope you are paying attention to all your fellow owners who are
dying

And statements like that, frankly, tend to drown all the sensible
things
you might have to say.


Mea Culpa, my only excuse is that he aggravated me.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)