Cirrus down, Chapel Hill NC

It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
have been over represented among GA accidents lately.

The story of this crash can be found here (and elsewhere)

http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_s...=homefirstleft

On Jul 13, 7:47*am, a wrote:
It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
have been over represented among GA accidents lately.

The story of this crash can be found here (and elsewhere)

http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_s...e-Plane-crashe...

In times past the Beech Bonanza, especially the V tail
variant was deemed the "Doctor Killer". It has now
been replaced by the Cirrus SR series.

And there's not a thing wrong with either. It's just
$ + high performance + low experience = incident.

Also, I read or heard somewhere that the BRS parachutes
don't work if your speed is excessive at deployment. The
lines can snap.

---
Mark

---

a writes:

It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
have been over represented among GA accidents lately.

They are indeed over-represented.

There's nothing wrong with the airplanes, but there's a lot wrong with the
manufacturer's marketing strategy, which encourages low-time, inexperienced,
naïve pilots to buy Cirrus aircraft, with an emphasis on luxury and prestige
and gadgets, and the subtle suggestion that a parachute can fix any problem
and prevent any accident.

I guess the parachute didn't help in this case, which isn't the least bit
surprising.

Mxsmanic wrote:
a writes:

It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
have been over represented among GA accidents lately.

They are indeed over-represented.

No. Their accident rate is less than that of Cessna 172s manufactured
over the same time period.

In 2009, there were 23 Cirrus accidents, vs. 3699 aircraft registered as
of January 2010. There were 3003 Cessna 172s on the registry that had
been manufactured since production restarted in the '90s. The NTSB
accident listing for 2009 shows 23 Cessna 172S models and four 172R models.

Cirrus: 23/3699 = 0.62%

New-Production 172s: 27/3003 = 0.89%


Ron Wanttaja

On Jul 15, 12:28*am, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
a writes:

It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
have been over represented among GA accidents lately.

They are indeed over-represented.

No. *Their accident rate is less than that of Cessna 172s manufactured
over the same time period.

In 2009, there were 23 Cirrus accidents, vs. 3699 aircraft registered as
of January 2010. *There were 3003 Cessna 172s on the registry that had
been manufactured since production restarted in the '90s. *The NTSB
accident listing for 2009 shows 23 Cessna 172S models and four 172R models.

Cirrus: *23/3699 = *0.62%

New-Production 172s: *27/3003 = 0.89%

Ron Wanttaja

Thanks Ron. I would expect too the C172s are more in the rental fleet,
probably get at least as many hours as the Cirrus. That is a guess of
course, it may normalize the distribution a bit.

I appreciate the factual input as opposed to opinion or my selective
memory.

Ron Wanttaja writes:

No. Their accident rate is less than that of Cessna 172s manufactured
over the same time period.

But there are far more Cessna 172s actually flying. About 43,000 of them have
been built, and more than 26,000 are still registered.

In 2009, there were 23 Cirrus accidents, vs. 3699 aircraft registered as
of January 2010. There were 3003 Cessna 172s on the registry that had
been manufactured since production restarted in the '90s. The NTSB
accident listing for 2009 shows 23 Cessna 172S models and four 172R models.

Cirrus: 23/3699 = 0.62%

New-Production 172s: 27/3003 = 0.89%

Why are you counting only new-production Cessna 172s? What about the other
26,000 Cessna 172s that are still flying?

If all Cessna 172s in service are compared to all Cirrus aircraft in service,
then the accident rate for Cirrus aircraft is about ten times greater than
that of Cessna 172s.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Wanttaja writes:

Cirrus: 23/3699 = 0.62%

New-Production 172s: 27/3003 = 0.89%

Why are you counting only new-production Cessna 172s? What about the other
26,000 Cessna 172s that are still flying?

Just because they're registered doesn't mean they're still flying. You
come up with a good way to tell how many are still flying, and we'll
have an apples-to-apples comparison.

Keep in mind that the FAA does not cancel an aircraft's registration
after a crash. Being on the registry doesn't mean the airplane even exists.

As a point of interest, there are more 50+ year-old Cessna 172s on the
rolls than there are new-production models. A third of them haven't
changed ownership in the past 20 years. Satisfied owners...or inactive
aircraft?

In 2009, there were 26,228 Cessnas of all vintages on the FAA rolls, and
115 accidents. This is a rate of about 0.43%...the Cirrus was about 50%
higher, but the new-production 172s had TWICE the accident rate of the
overall fleet.

Should we conclude that there's something wrong with the new-production
172s? Or is just in the way Cessna markets them?

Comparing new-production 172s avoids the active/inactive issues. The
172 came back into production within a few years of the Cirrus, thus the
two types should be evenly affected by the active/inactive aircraft.

The FAA has started an initiative to clean up the registry. We will
probably be seeing the total number of GA aircraft drop over the next
several years.

Ron Wanttaja

Mxsmanic wrote:

Why are you counting only new-production Cessna 172s?

In order to get a somewhat valid comparison.

The numbers of both built are in the same ballpark and the ages are comparable
so the same percentage of both are likely still flying.

What about the other
26,000 Cessna 172s that are still flying?

Because no one knows how many of them are still flying.

If you had ever visited any real airports you would know there are lots of
airplanes that exist on the records but don't fly, or even exist anymore.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Ron Wanttaja writes:

Just because they're registered doesn't mean they're still flying. You
come up with a good way to tell how many are still flying, and we'll
have an apples-to-apples comparison.

So how do you know that all those Cirrus aircraft are flying?

As a point of interest, there are more 50+ year-old Cessna 172s on the
rolls than there are new-production models. A third of them haven't
changed ownership in the past 20 years. Satisfied owners...or inactive
aircraft?

My guess is the former. Just because an airplane has had the same owner for 20
years hardly means that it isn't being used.

In 2009, there were 26,228 Cessnas of all vintages on the FAA rolls, and
115 accidents. This is a rate of about 0.43%...the Cirrus was about 50%
higher, but the new-production 172s had TWICE the accident rate of the
overall fleet.

So?

Should we conclude that there's something wrong with the new-production
172s? Or is just in the way Cessna markets them?

Why not just look at the way they are marketed? The problems with Cirrus'
marketing are obvious.

Comparing new-production 172s avoids the active/inactive issues.

And helps massage the numbers to make Cirrus look better.

writes:

In order to get a somewhat valid comparison.

What's invalid about comparing all Cessnas?

The numbers of both built are in the same ballpark and the ages are comparable
so the same percentage of both are likely still flying.

What evidence is there that older aircraft are not being flown?

Because no one knows how many of them are still flying.

Nobody knows how many of the new aircraft are flying, either.

If you had ever visited any real airports you would know there are lots of
airplanes that exist on the records but don't fly, or even exist anymore.

Why would Cessnas produced before Cirrus was around be especially prone to
non-flying status?

How about comparing Cirrus with Diamond? Both companies are about the same
age. Which has more accidents?