Cirrus Death Trap?

The long knives are coming out now... This excerpted from an AP
article this evening:

"Hersman said that as of September, there were 545 SR20s registered in
the United States. Since 2001, the NTSB has investigated 18 accidents
involving the plane; those crashes resulted in 14 deaths."

They sure make that sound terrible, don't they? Why, in just five
years, 3.3% of the SR-20 fleet has been lost to accidents, resulting in
14 deaths!

Heck, that means that in, um, er, something like 151.5 years there will
be NO Cirrus SR-20s left flying at all! See the whole article he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061013/...an_plane_crash

:-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
The long knives are coming out now... This excerpted from an AP
article this evening:

"Hersman said that as of September, there were 545 SR20s registered in
the United States. Since 2001, the NTSB has investigated 18 accidents
involving the plane; those crashes resulted in 14 deaths."

They sure make that sound terrible, don't they? Why, in just five
years, 3.3% of the SR-20 fleet has been lost to accidents, resulting in
14 deaths!

Heck, that means that in, um, er, something like 151.5 years there will
be NO Cirrus SR-20s left flying at all! See the whole article he

Yeah, but the bright side is that in only 100 years, the Cirrus SR-20
fatality rate will be nil! Did you know that the Sopwith Camel was one
of the SAFEST aircraft last year? ZERO fatalities! Wow!

Statistics have sharp edges on both sides.

Marco

Everyone who ate tomatoes before the year 1880 is dead!
Therefore tomatoes must be poisonous.



"Marco Leon" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Jay Honeck wrote:
| The long knives are coming out now... This excerpted
from an AP
| article this evening:
|
| "Hersman said that as of September, there were 545 SR20s
registered in
| the United States. Since 2001, the NTSB has investigated
18 accidents
| involving the plane; those crashes resulted in 14
deaths."
|
| They sure make that sound terrible, don't they? Why, in
just five
| years, 3.3% of the SR-20 fleet has been lost to
accidents, resulting in
| 14 deaths!
|
| Heck, that means that in, um, er, something like 151.5
years there will
| be NO Cirrus SR-20s left flying at all! See the whole
article he
|
| Yeah, but the bright side is that in only 100 years, the
Cirrus SR-20
| fatality rate will be nil! Did you know that the Sopwith
Camel was one
| of the SAFEST aircraft last year? ZERO fatalities! Wow!
|
| Statistics have sharp edges on both sides.
|
| Marco
|

Well, the ones from before 1880 were!

Don't believe me? Why don't you try one and see?

;-)

Chris

"Jim Macklin" writes:
Everyone who ate tomatoes before the year 1880 is dead!
Therefore tomatoes must be poisonous.



"Marco Leon" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Jay Honeck wrote:
| The long knives are coming out now... This excerpted
from an AP
| article this evening:
|
| "Hersman said that as of September, there were 545 SR20s
registered in
| the United States. Since 2001, the NTSB has investigated
18 accidents
| involving the plane; those crashes resulted in 14
deaths."
|
| They sure make that sound terrible, don't they? Why, in
just five
| years, 3.3% of the SR-20 fleet has been lost to
accidents, resulting in
| 14 deaths!
|
| Heck, that means that in, um, er, something like 151.5
years there will
| be NO Cirrus SR-20s left flying at all! See the whole
article he
|
| Yeah, but the bright side is that in only 100 years, the
Cirrus SR-20
| fatality rate will be nil! Did you know that the Sopwith
Camel was one
| of the SAFEST aircraft last year? ZERO fatalities! Wow!
|
| Statistics have sharp edges on both sides.
|
| Marco
|

Jay Honeck writes:

Heck, that means that in, um, er, something like 151.5 years there will
be NO Cirrus SR-20s left flying at all!

The aircraft seem like the type that might appeal to low-time pilots
who think that special gadgets will keep them safe and/or free of
accidents (or surviving accidents). Naturally this would result in
higher accident numbers, even if the aircraft is not fundamentally
unsafe.

Also, it seems like the aircraft is actively marketed to precisely
this type of buyer, which makes things even worse. It looks like Carl
Lidle fell for it (in more ways than one).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote on 10/12/06 21:27:

Jay Honeck writes:

Heck, that means that in, um, er, something like 151.5 years there will
be NO Cirrus SR-20s left flying at all!

The aircraft seem like the type that might appeal to low-time pilots
who think that special gadgets will keep them safe and/or free of
accidents (or surviving accidents). Naturally this would result in
higher accident numbers, even if the aircraft is not fundamentally
unsafe.

Also, it seems like the aircraft is actively marketed to precisely
this type of buyer, which makes things even worse. It looks like Carl
Lidle fell for it (in more ways than one).



Bull. He did the right thing, realizing that he was a low-time pilot, and had a
flight instructor with him.

Thurman Munson also had a CFI with him too. A CFI who is
not experienced in the airspace, or airplane is a broken
crutch. A PIC accompanied by a CFI is not doing his command
job. Rules by the Yankee's organization to require a CFI
should require active crew resource management, planning and
dispatch by the CFI. Two pilots waiting for the other to
make a decision will have an accident sooner or later.
IMHO
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/n...SB-AAR-80-2%22
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Joe Feise" wrote in message
...
| Mxsmanic wrote on 10/12/06 21:27:
|
| Jay Honeck writes:
|
| Heck, that means that in, um, er, something like 151.5
years there will
| be NO Cirrus SR-20s left flying at all!
|
| The aircraft seem like the type that might appeal to
low-time pilots
| who think that special gadgets will keep them safe
and/or free of
| accidents (or surviving accidents). Naturally this
would result in
| higher accident numbers, even if the aircraft is not
fundamentally
| unsafe.
|
| Also, it seems like the aircraft is actively marketed to
precisely
| this type of buyer, which makes things even worse. It
looks like Carl
| Lidle fell for it (in more ways than one).
|
|
|
| Bull. He did the right thing, realizing that he was a
low-time pilot, and had a
| flight instructor with him.
|

Jim Macklin wrote:

Thurman Munson also had a CFI with him too. A CFI who is
not experienced in the airspace, or airplane is a broken
crutch. A PIC accompanied by a CFI is not doing his command
job. Rules by the Yankee's organization to require a CFI
should require active crew resource management, planning and
dispatch by the CFI. Two pilots waiting for the other to
make a decision will have an accident sooner or later.
IMHO
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/n...SB-AAR-80-2%22

The report you cite mentions that Munson's "instructor" was merely a passenger for the
flight. He had no flying experience in turbojet aircraft (I assume they mean as
pilot). The instructor in this accident apparently was well aquainted with the
aircraft type and provided instruction in that type. As for airspace awareness, that
may well be a factor and there is no subsitute for local experience. However the
airspace around Manhattan is not a secret and I would expect an instructor to be able
to obtain all of the information needed to safely pass through that airspace, from the
terminal chart, from talking to local pilots, and just mentally calculating the turn as
well as both pilots keeping their eyes outside the airplane.

Does anyone know at what elevation the impact took place? Were the pilots trying to
change the turn at the last minute if they suddenly saw the building, or is there
anything to suggest that they knew they were headed for the building but unable to
change course (mechanical malfunction), despite trying to do so? I'm very curious
about the time interval between when they first realized there could be a collision and
the impact.

Owen

----clip----

Does anyone know at what elevation the impact took place? Were the pilots trying to
change the turn at the last minute if they suddenly saw the building, or is there
anything to suggest that they knew they were headed for the building but unable to
change course (mechanical malfunction), despite trying to do so? I'm very curious
about the time interval between when they first realized there could be a collision and
the impact.


The time interval you asked about is just enought to say "Oh S**t".

I'm assuming you asked a valid question and I tried to give a truthful
answer from my experience listening to 'black boxes" after accidents.

Big John

Joe Feise wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote on 10/12/06 21:27:

Jay Honeck writes:

Heck, that means that in, um, er, something like 151.5 years there will
be NO Cirrus SR-20s left flying at all!
The aircraft seem like the type that might appeal to low-time pilots
who think that special gadgets will keep them safe and/or free of
accidents (or surviving accidents). Naturally this would result in
higher accident numbers, even if the aircraft is not fundamentally
unsafe.

Also, it seems like the aircraft is actively marketed to precisely
this type of buyer, which makes things even worse. It looks like Carl
Lidle fell for it (in more ways than one).



Bull. He did the right thing, realizing that he was a low-time pilot, and had a
flight instructor with him.


But did the flight instructor believe he was at any risk? Here's a blurb
I took from one of the many stories:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/12/plane.crash/index.html

"""
In a 2004 article in the San Gabriel Valley (California) Tribune,
Stanger said that flying is very safe.

"The most dangerous part about flying is the drive to the airport," he
said. "It's a wing. It's very safe. It's the wing that flies, it's not
the engine."

"""

Seems like the instructor believed that the drive to the airport was
more dangerous. Isn't that only true for commercial flight?

--
Mike