Cirrus... is it time for certification review?

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

Maybe. This is about the first reasonable question I've heard.

In the last twenty years, four general aviation aircraft have been
subjected to special certification review following a series of
accidents. The Cessna 210, Piper Malibu, Beech Bonanza and the
Mitusbushi MU-2.

You are forgetting the R-22 and R-44, as a minimum. I didn't know
about the C-210 and Malibu. Do you have any references?

In each case, pilot training was found to be the highest contributing
issue. In the case of the Bonanza, some structural strengthening was
recommended.

I know that there is an AD against the MU-2 that requires either a
****load of cockpit automation (that most experienced MU-2 pilots
believe is not necessary) or annual recurrent training (that most
experienced MU-2 pilots believe is necessary).

Unlike most people who comment on the SR-22, I've actually got some
time in one. My first flight in it required me to assist the pilot
(who had something like 200 hours in his, and little additional flight
experience - but had taken his instrument training in it) with
completing a routine ILS approach with no complications/failures in
benign IMC. He actually managed to peg the GS needle, and I had to
talk him through the recovery without scaring the non-pilot passenger
in the back.

In addition to my few hours in the SR-22, I have well over 1000 hours
in planes of the same prefromance class (in terms of speed, load,
range, etc.) These include a reasonable sampling of the fleet (Lance,
straight-tail and V-tail Bonanzas, Mooneys, Twin Comanches, C-310,
Barons) and thus a basis for comparison. I don't think there is
anything inherently wrong with the SR-22. It's a fine airplane with
handling appropriate to the performance - meaning it's not a C-172 or
Cherokee, and isn't supposed to be. Probably the biggest issue with it
is slowing it down - it requires more planning on the descent and
deceleration than any other plane I've flown. There is nothing to help
the pilot slow down. No gear to drop, very low flap speed and flaps
that don't add much drag, and you can't even push the prop forward
without powering up. However, the difference is not terribly
problematic, and should not present a major problem for the experienced
pilot. For the inexperienced pilot, I can see how it would be a
handful.

The problem, as I see it, is that the plane is being marketed to low
time pilots as a 'simple' airplane - fixed gear, no prop control, just
like a C-172. Once we have a change of mindset - meaning that once we
accept that an SR-22 is no more (nor less) suitable for a low time
pilot than an A-36 or M-20R, we won't have a problem. But how many low
time pilots are buying A-36's and M-20R's?

I once checked out a low time pilot (150 hours over 10 years, ink still
wet on the temporary private) in an A-36 Bonanza. The insurance was a
special risk (only one company would even write him, at well over
double what a qualified pilot would pay), the insurance company was
very picky about who could do his checkout (they wanted 1500TT, 500
hours in planes that were both complex and high performance, though
they agreed to accept my Twin Comanche time in lieu though it didn't
technically meet that definition, and 50 hours in the larger IO-520/550
powered Bonanzas), and they wanted to see 25 hours dual prior to solo
and 25 hours of solo prior to carrying passengers.

I suspect that if the insurance companies treated SR-22 owners the way
they treat A-36 owners, most of the problems would go away - mostly by
discouraging low time pilots from buying the planes in the first place.

Michael