Cirrus... is it time for certification review?

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:26:33 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:


"john smith" wrote in message
...
With the recent spate of Cirrus accidents, the question arises, "Is it
time for a special certification review?"


Any aircraft has a baseline accident rate. I think the Cirrus has a higher
accident rate because a handful of pilots get themselves into a mindset
where they are willing to enter conditions they would have not entered
without the big round "insurance policy". Often they get away with pushing
things. Sometimes they don't, and those accidents are the ones that are
taking the Cirrus accident rate to higher than predicted levels.

The problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes.

I agree.

This discussion has come up at least twice a year since the SR-20 and
22 came out.

The SR-22 is a capable airplane. It has the BRS for "just in case", it
has the weeping wing deice for "just in case". It's not for know
icing, but just in case, it has the simple (er) set of engine and prop
controls, and it has fixed gear. BUT it has high wing loading. A
fair amount higher than most fixed gear pilots are used to and
noticeable heavier than a Bo. SR-22 loading is about 23.5 while the Bo
is on the order as about the same as a Cherokee at 17.2. The Bo wing
loading covers a wide rage from about 16 to 19# per sq ft. It's one
whale of a lot slipperier though than the Cherokee though.
This is almost 32% heavier loading compared to the Cherokee and the
lighter Bonanzas and Debonairs. That is not to be taken lightly and
there is no pun intended. Over a 30% change in wing loading is a
serious change particularly for low time pilots.

I thought I'd take the easy way out and do a quick search instead of
calculating a bunch of wing loadings. The first thing that came up
was: http://www.aviation-pilots.com/construct/thread41.html
Then I noted who did the calculations. Careful what you say as it's
sometimes surprising as to where it shows up. :-))

At any rate, the SR-22 has all these whiz bang safety features AND
it's fixed gear, but it has the performance of a Bonanza with up to
30% heavier wing loading. The safety features are great, but here we
have an airplane that is meant for, or should be meant for experienced
pilots used to high performance be it fixed or retract gear.

Put all these features in a plane and then put the typical pilot with
a fixed gear mentality behind the yoke and it could be a recipe for
disaster. I mean no disrespect to fixed gear pilots. The typical fixed
gear pilot moving to the SR-22 would be akin to me moving to a TBM-700
or 850 One is a pilot with a 130 MPH mind moving to a 200 MPH airplane
while I'd be the pilot with a 200 MPH mind moving to a 360 MPH
airplane. OTOH I do have at least a little experience with faster
planes with much higher wing loading, but not enough to be safe
though.

My point is that even with all the training provided and *required*
the pilots *appear* "to me" to be flying a 200 MPH high performance
airplane as if it were a 130 MPH airplane. As a purely personal
opinion, I think they should forget it has a fixed gear and fly it as
if it were a retract.

Actually I think the retract has an advantage. The SR-22 is slippery
with a high wing loading. In a Bonanza if you get into trouble they
tell you to put the gear down and forget the doors. When the gear goes
down even at pattern speed it feels like some one put the brakes on
although the brakes with those tires don't have that much authority on
the runway. :-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"john smith" wrote in

With the recent spate of Cirrus accidents, the question arises, "Is it
time for a special certification review?"

Absolutely. Spending millions of dollars is justified whenever any idiot
whines that there's an issue that can be resolved by political action.

Answer your own question.

moo

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..
Any aircraft has a baseline accident rate. I think the Cirrus has a
higher accident rate because a handful of pilots get themselves into a
mindset where they are willing to enter conditions they would have not
entered without the big round "insurance policy". Often they get away
with pushing things. Sometimes they don't, and those accidents are the
ones that are taking the Cirrus accident rate to higher than predicted
levels.

The problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes.

I've yet to see anyone document an accident rate that is actually higher
than might be expected (never mind "predicted"...who has predicted a
specific accident rate for the Cirrus, and why should we believe that
prediction?).

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).

Apples and oranges. The 182 fleet is many times larger than the SR22
fleet. And the 172 fleet is near infinite compared to the Cirrus fleet.
The numbers look pretty bad for Cirrus.

Did you adjust for the kind of flying done by each? No, you didn't.

moo

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

Aluckyguess wrote:
Looks like the Cirrus just gets more puplicity than the rest. I think its
because of the chute. They figure it shoudn't crash.



I think that is some truth to that. I'm waiting for the lawsuit about
the chute that didn't save someone's loved one from themselves. Just as
Piper was sued over their automatic gear extension system and quit using
it, I suspect it is just a matter of time for Cirrus.

Our legal system is completely dysfunctional.

Matt

Newps,

Cue Mr. Borchert, main Cirrus apologist.


Just out of curiosity: What is the purpose of your post? To stifle
sensible discussion in this group even further? Have I at any point
raised unreasonable points that I was not able to substantiate by fact
about the Cirrus at any time? If so, please point them out to me.

This group is really going downhill fast, if differing opinions backed
up by facts are now considered to be a no-no.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

In a Bonanza if you get into trouble they
tell you to put the gear down and forget the doors. When the gear goes
down even at pattern speed it feels like some one put the brakes on
although the brakes with those tires don't have that much authority on
the runway. :-))

The best way to slow a retract down is to put the gear down in the air, and
pick it up again in the flare. :-)

In article ,
"Kyle Boatright" wrote:

Flying magazine (or AOPA?.. dunno) ran the numbers a year or so ago and
compared the accident rate between Cirrus and competitive models. I don't
have a copy at hand, but there was a significant difference in accidents
with Cirrus having a much higher rate than the other A/C.

And in the past year, the numbers have gotten worse.
Accidents and incidents (from theFAA and NTSB databases)
1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
SR20 1 0 2 3 0 1 2 7
SR22 - - 2 2 3 8 12 15

Recently, Thomas Borchert posted:

Newps,

Cue Mr. Borchert, main Cirrus apologist.


Just out of curiosity: What is the purpose of your post? To stifle
sensible discussion in this group even further? Have I at any point
raised unreasonable points that I was not able to substantiate by fact
about the Cirrus at any time? If so, please point them out to me.

This group is really going downhill fast, if differing opinions backed
up by facts are now considered to be a no-no.

This is not a new phenomenon around here, Thomas. We just seem to be
getting more sensitive to it, perhaps because of the greatly increased
traffic, one of the better outcomes of Mxsmanic's posts, IMO.

Neil

And in the past year, the numbers have gotten worse.
Accidents and incidents (from theFAA and NTSB databases)
1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
SR20 1 0 2 3 0 1 2 7
SR22 - - 2 2 3 8 12 15

We don't know if these are "worse" without knowing fleet size and hours
flown for those years.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.