Owning before obtaining a PP license

"Dude" wrote in message ...
.... but a 182 or
Diamond Star won't be that far behind the 22, and they are much safer.


I'm curious to see where this statement comes from. What data do you
have to back up the statement that a Diamond Star or 182 is "safer"
than the Cirrus SR22?

Aside from that, as a newly minted PPL, most would not advise jumping
into a high-perf airplane. What are you training in? If you like it,
consider buying that model, new or used. Or others similar to it. If
you want to unload that pile of cash, you can spend it nicely on a new
Cessna 172/182 or a Piper Archer. Over $200K. In a year or two
you'll probably be able to sell it for a good percentage of what you
paid.

Save your pile of cash for down the road when you're adequately
prepared for the step up. And, as others have said, you'll have a
real hard time getting insured as a new pilot, without IFR, with low
hours, in an SR22 to fly it solo. They may even require 50 hours or
more with an instructor with time in type.

The numbers I heard for a student in a 22 were 14k insurance, and they had
to use a factory course. There is a group out of Oregon that comes to your
airport and trains you. It cannot be cheap.


"Dave" wrote in message
om...
"Dude" wrote in message
...
.... but a 182 or
Diamond Star won't be that far behind the 22, and they are much safer.


I'm curious to see where this statement comes from. What data do you
have to back up the statement that a Diamond Star or 182 is "safer"
than the Cirrus SR22?

Aside from that, as a newly minted PPL, most would not advise jumping
into a high-perf airplane. What are you training in? If you like it,
consider buying that model, new or used. Or others similar to it. If
you want to unload that pile of cash, you can spend it nicely on a new
Cessna 172/182 or a Piper Archer. Over $200K. In a year or two
you'll probably be able to sell it for a good percentage of what you
paid.

Save your pile of cash for down the road when you're adequately
prepared for the step up. And, as others have said, you'll have a
real hard time getting insured as a new pilot, without IFR, with low
hours, in an SR22 to fly it solo. They may even require 50 hours or
more with an instructor with time in type.

The numbers I use are the only ones I trust - NTSB incident and fatality
statistics.

The rest is all conjecture, anecdote, and psuedo science. Well, its not
that bad, but I start with the stats, and qualify it from there.

The SR22 is statistically safer than the 20, and both have been doing better
since they started the factory training. There are lots of theories, but we
really do not know why they have faired so badly. Cirrus has reacted
reasonably well, with more training. We will likely know more in another
year or so.

The newer 182's are doing a bit better than the older ones. The Diamond's
have low fleet numbers on the 4 seaters, but the 2 seater is a similar
design, and is so much safer than anything else in the fleet that there have
been serious studies to figure out why. There have been midairs, inverted
landings, IFR CFIT accidents, wire strikes, and cross runway collisions with
the Diamond's in which the passengers walked away virtually unharmed. I
hear that Lancair has looked at Diamond's success, and even hired away
employees from them to make the 400.

Aviation Consumer had an excellent article on all this.



"Dave" wrote in message
om...
"Dude" wrote in message
...
.... but a 182 or
Diamond Star won't be that far behind the 22, and they are much safer.


I'm curious to see where this statement comes from. What data do you
have to back up the statement that a Diamond Star or 182 is "safer"
than the Cirrus SR22?

Aside from that, as a newly minted PPL, most would not advise jumping
into a high-perf airplane. What are you training in? If you like it,
consider buying that model, new or used. Or others similar to it. If
you want to unload that pile of cash, you can spend it nicely on a new
Cessna 172/182 or a Piper Archer. Over $200K. In a year or two
you'll probably be able to sell it for a good percentage of what you
paid.

Save your pile of cash for down the road when you're adequately
prepared for the step up. And, as others have said, you'll have a
real hard time getting insured as a new pilot, without IFR, with low
hours, in an SR22 to fly it solo. They may even require 50 hours or
more with an instructor with time in type.

Which Diamond Two Seater? The Katana/Rotax or the current DA20
Eclipse/Evolution?


"Dude" wrote in message
...
The numbers I use are the only ones I trust - NTSB incident and fatality
statistics.

The rest is all conjecture, anecdote, and psuedo science. Well, its not
that bad, but I start with the stats, and qualify it from there.

The SR22 is statistically safer than the 20, and both have been doing
better
since they started the factory training. There are lots of theories, but
we
really do not know why they have faired so badly. Cirrus has reacted
reasonably well, with more training. We will likely know more in another
year or so.

The newer 182's are doing a bit better than the older ones. The Diamond's
have low fleet numbers on the 4 seaters, but the 2 seater is a similar
design, and is so much safer than anything else in the fleet that there
have
been serious studies to figure out why. There have been midairs,
inverted
landings, IFR CFIT accidents, wire strikes, and cross runway collisions
with
the Diamond's in which the passengers walked away virtually unharmed. I
hear that Lancair has looked at Diamond's success, and even hired away
employees from them to make the 400.

Aviation Consumer had an excellent article on all this.



"Dave" wrote in message
om...
"Dude" wrote in message
...
.... but a 182 or
Diamond Star won't be that far behind the 22, and they are much safer.


I'm curious to see where this statement comes from. What data do you
have to back up the statement that a Diamond Star or 182 is "safer"
than the Cirrus SR22?

Aside from that, as a newly minted PPL, most would not advise jumping
into a high-perf airplane. What are you training in? If you like it,
consider buying that model, new or used. Or others similar to it. If
you want to unload that pile of cash, you can spend it nicely on a new
Cessna 172/182 or a Piper Archer. Over $200K. In a year or two
you'll probably be able to sell it for a good percentage of what you
paid.

Save your pile of cash for down the road when you're adequately
prepared for the step up. And, as others have said, you'll have a
real hard time getting insured as a new pilot, without IFR, with low
hours, in an SR22 to fly it solo. They may even require 50 hours or
more with an instructor with time in type.

I don't know if the reports I have seen included the rotax planes or not.
However, there are so few of them that they would make little difference in
the overall numbers.


"T.Roger" wrote in message
m...
Which Diamond Two Seater? The Katana/Rotax or the current DA20
Eclipse/Evolution?


"Dude" wrote in message
...
The numbers I use are the only ones I trust - NTSB incident and fatality
statistics.

The rest is all conjecture, anecdote, and psuedo science. Well, its not
that bad, but I start with the stats, and qualify it from there.

The SR22 is statistically safer than the 20, and both have been doing
better
since they started the factory training. There are lots of theories, but
we
really do not know why they have faired so badly. Cirrus has reacted
reasonably well, with more training. We will likely know more in another
year or so.

The newer 182's are doing a bit better than the older ones. The
Diamond's
have low fleet numbers on the 4 seaters, but the 2 seater is a similar
design, and is so much safer than anything else in the fleet that there
have
been serious studies to figure out why. There have been midairs,
inverted
landings, IFR CFIT accidents, wire strikes, and cross runway collisions
with
the Diamond's in which the passengers walked away virtually unharmed. I
hear that Lancair has looked at Diamond's success, and even hired away
employees from them to make the 400.

Aviation Consumer had an excellent article on all this.



"Dave" wrote in message
om...
"Dude" wrote in message
...
.... but a 182 or
Diamond Star won't be that far behind the 22, and they are much safer.


I'm curious to see where this statement comes from. What data do you
have to back up the statement that a Diamond Star or 182 is "safer"
than the Cirrus SR22?

Aside from that, as a newly minted PPL, most would not advise jumping
into a high-perf airplane. What are you training in? If you like it,
consider buying that model, new or used. Or others similar to it. If
you want to unload that pile of cash, you can spend it nicely on a new
Cessna 172/182 or a Piper Archer. Over $200K. In a year or two
you'll probably be able to sell it for a good percentage of what you
paid.

Save your pile of cash for down the road when you're adequately
prepared for the step up. And, as others have said, you'll have a
real hard time getting insured as a new pilot, without IFR, with low
hours, in an SR22 to fly it solo. They may even require 50 hours or
more with an instructor with time in type.

"Dude" wrote in message
...

The SR22 is statistically safer than the 20, and both have been doing
better
since they started the factory training.

How is the sample size on this? I suspect that any 20 vs. 22 conjecture is
statistically on shaky ground.

There are lots of theories, but we
really do not know why they have faired so badly.

My unqualified conjecture is that aircraft performance has not been taken
sufficiently into account in our understanding of risk. The SR-22 delivers
speeds formerly available only to twins and the most complex singles with
the same number of knobs to twiddle as a 172. But a new SR-22 will nearly
double the cruise speed of a middle-aged 172.

I tend to think, again unqualified opinion, that the Cirrus has been
attracting a dangerous type of pilot. That is, someone with less experience
but a lot of money who sees the high performance only as a benefit and is
lured by an illusion of low complexity.

I'd like to see an analysis of the SR-22 against other types where one
controls for pilot experience. In other words, how do 400-hour Cirrus pilots
do compared to 400-hour A36 pilots? Give a less-experienced or current pilot
the choice between flying an SR-22 and a Bonanza and he'll almost certainly
choose the Cirrus. In fact the risk may be quite comparable.

Also, there's the notion, which I believe very strongly in, that the
parachute creates a false sense of security and entices pilots into trying
things that get them killed in ways the 'chute won't help. As the Lancair
fleet grows we'll see if this holds out, because they offer similar
performance and complexity.

Also, I tend to wonder whether speed brakes wouldn't be a great addition to
the SR-22 that would actually make it safer to fly by making it easier for
the pilot to get rid of speed.

Cirrus has reacted
reasonably well, with more training. We will likely know more in another
year or so.

Well, they had to do something--you can't sell a plane that no one will
insure and that's where Cirrus looked to be heading.

From what I've read the SR-22 rates seem to be converging towards those of
the 182, which casts some doubt on my performance-vs-complexity theory. Or
not. If this was a decisive factor it would seem straightforward enough to
incorporate it into the training. This would comport with what we've seen
between owner-flown turbine twins and light jets like the CJ1. The jet may
challenge you with a lot more altitude and cruise speed but it also offers a
lot more tools to manage all that performance. We do know that with proper
training a pilot can operate very high performance aircraft with relatively
few training hours.

the Diamond's in which the passengers walked away virtually unharmed. I
hear that Lancair has looked at Diamond's success, and even hired away
employees from them to make the 400.

The kind of crashes that people have survived in Katanas are amazing.
Diamond talks a lot about the 20g cage structure and it seems to really
work.

-cwk.

This is really going off topic, and the debate has been had but...


...

The SR22 is statistically safer than the 20, and both have been doing
better
since they started the factory training.

How is the sample size on this? I suspect that any 20 vs. 22 conjecture is
statistically on shaky ground.


My statement on the 20 vs. 22 number is based on incidents and fatalities
per 100k hours. The fleet of 20's may not have a million hours which seems
to be the least amount acceptable to the statistician types. Those who
refuse to accept the data generally want a different number. The pro Cirrus
crowd thinks you should ignore all the data before a certain number, and
ignore CFIT accidents. The Cessna Beech crowd want an ever growing history.
In other words, to compare to their planes you need 20 years of records and
will need 30 years in another ten, etc. etc.

There are lots of theories, but we
really do not know why they have faired so badly.

My unqualified conjecture is that aircraft performance has not been taken
sufficiently into account in our understanding of risk. The SR-22 delivers
speeds formerly available only to twins and the most complex singles with
the same number of knobs to twiddle as a 172. But a new SR-22 will nearly
double the cruise speed of a middle-aged 172.

I tend to think, again unqualified opinion, that the Cirrus has been
attracting a dangerous type of pilot. That is, someone with less
experience
but a lot of money who sees the high performance only as a benefit and is
lured by an illusion of low complexity.

I'd like to see an analysis of the SR-22 against other types where one
controls for pilot experience. In other words, how do 400-hour Cirrus
pilots
do compared to 400-hour A36 pilots? Give a less-experienced or current
pilot
the choice between flying an SR-22 and a Bonanza and he'll almost
certainly
choose the Cirrus. In fact the risk may be quite comparable.

Also, there's the notion, which I believe very strongly in, that the
parachute creates a false sense of security and entices pilots into trying
things that get them killed in ways the 'chute won't help. As the Lancair
fleet grows we'll see if this holds out, because they offer similar
performance and complexity.


I can't find anything wrong with your statements here, and I tend to agree.
However, the Brothers in Minnesota are still happy to sell an SR22 to anyone
willing to pay for the plane and the training.

Also, I tend to wonder whether speed brakes wouldn't be a great addition
to
the SR-22 that would actually make it safer to fly by making it easier for
the pilot to get rid of speed.


Again, I agree. Unfortunately, the Cirrus owners cry fowl at this heresy
because they say the plane is easy to land. I say its as slick as a Mooney,
and they are a great help in a Mooney.

Cirrus has reacted
reasonably well, with more training. We will likely know more in another
year or so.

Well, they had to do something--you can't sell a plane that no one will
insure and that's where Cirrus looked to be heading.

From what I've read the SR-22 rates seem to be converging towards those of
the 182, which casts some doubt on my performance-vs-complexity theory. Or
not. If this was a decisive factor it would seem straightforward enough to
incorporate it into the training. This would comport with what we've seen
between owner-flown turbine twins and light jets like the CJ1. The jet may
challenge you with a lot more altitude and cruise speed but it also offers
a
lot more tools to manage all that performance. We do know that with proper
training a pilot can operate very high performance aircraft with
relatively
few training hours.


Certainly. I wonder about judgement though. Also, there is something to be
said for having your first "OH S#*T" experience in something that is slower
and more stable (not to mention crash worthy). Though the numbers on the 22
were headed into the green, I have not seen anyone split out the stats to
show that they are doing that well. Better, but not in Cessna territory.

the Diamond's in which the passengers walked away virtually unharmed. I
hear that Lancair has looked at Diamond's success, and even hired away
employees from them to make the 400.

The kind of crashes that people have survived in Katanas are amazing.
Diamond talks a lot about the 20g cage structure and it seems to really
work.

-cwk.

"Dude" wrote in message
...
This is really going off topic, and the debate has been had but...

This is Usenet! Just 'cuz the horse is lyin' down and hasn't moved in a week
don't mean we can't kick it again


...

The SR22 is statistically safer than the 20, and both have been doing
better
since they started the factory training.

How is the sample size on this? I suspect that any 20 vs. 22 conjecture
is
statistically on shaky ground.


My statement on the 20 vs. 22 number is based on incidents and fatalities
per 100k hours. The fleet of 20's may not have a million hours which
seems
to be the least amount acceptable to the statistician types. Those who
refuse to accept the data generally want a different number. The pro
Cirrus
crowd thinks you should ignore all the data before a certain number, and
ignore CFIT accidents. The Cessna Beech crowd want an ever growing
history.
In other words, to compare to their planes you need 20 years of records
and
will need 30 years in another ten, etc. etc.

There's another rule in statistics that the smallest sample about which you
can make a statistically sound statement is 30. It's statistically dubious
to draw assumptions from very small samples but there's also a point of
diminishing returns to having ever-larger sample sizes.

I can't find anything wrong with your statements here, and I tend to
agree.
However, the Brothers in Minnesota are still happy to sell an SR22 to
anyone
willing to pay for the plane and the training.

Just as a Ford dealer will happily sell a 300HP Mustang to a 17 year-old
boy. It's the insurance companies that have a stake in not seeing either
party drive into a telephone pole metaphorically or otherwise. Problem is
that the way the insurance market works there was a real risk that the plane
could become almost uninsurable by any pilot. Anyway, it's long been the
insurance companies who determine what constitutes a "qualified pilot," and
rightly so, as they're the only ones who have a financial stake in the
successful outcome of the flight.

Again, I agree. Unfortunately, the Cirrus owners cry fowl at this heresy
because they say the plane is easy to land. I say its as slick as a
Mooney,
and they are a great help in a Mooney.

And in the transition from enroute to approach, which is the first really
big opportunity for a pilot to get behind the airplane. I think the only
thing it says about the airplane is that it's fast. You don't see
speedbrakes on Saratogas for a reason.

Certainly. I wonder about judgement though. Also, there is something to
be
said for having your first "OH S#*T" experience in something that is
slower
and more stable (not to mention crash worthy).

Well, let's be fair and say that there are a significant body of "OH S#*T"
experiences that are more survivable in a Cirrus than anything else. Of
course, from the insurance company's perspective, a total hull loss is a
total hull loss, whether it's due to CAPS or an engine-out night landing in
the mountains.

I would love to have my hands on an SR-22, but right now, as a 200-hour
instrument pilot, I feel like my 172 is enough for me to deal with. I'd love
to upgrade to a 182, but I think that would be plenty for at least another
300 hours.

-cwk.

course, from the insurance company's perspective, a total hull loss is a
total hull loss, whether it's due to CAPS or an engine-out night landing in
the mountains.

One difference---the latter scenario is also likely to be accompanied by
medical payments, or worse. Presumably the CAPS landing would be
injury-free.

This is Usenet! Just 'cuz the horse is lyin' down and hasn't moved in a
week
don't mean we can't kick it again


You know that's the truth!

There's another rule in statistics that the smallest sample about which
you
can make a statistically sound statement is 30. It's statistically dubious
to draw assumptions from very small samples but there's also a point of
diminishing returns to having ever-larger sample sizes.

Interesting. What is the sample size here really? Is a sample a single
hour, an average flight of some number of hours, an accident, a plane, or
what? It would seem if the best performer runs at .28 failures per 100,000
hours (I think this was the rate for the DA20 at last look) then you would
need about a million to ensure a good number because there is no such thing
as a .28 dead person.



Well, let's be fair and say that there are a significant body of "OH S#*T"
experiences that are more survivable in a Cirrus than anything else. Of
course, from the insurance company's perspective, a total hull loss is a
total hull loss, whether it's due to CAPS or an engine-out night landing
in
the mountains.


I am not yet ready to agree. I await more hours free of fatalities. Sure
the chute is good, but what would the designer have done without the BRS
option. Would the plane be less safe? I would rather have the Lancair I
think, but its more money.