Cirrus... is it time for certification review?

"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).

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).

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

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

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

Pete, from the reports I have seen about Cirrus crashes it is clearly
pilot error. Of course the same probably applies to all aircraft
types.

Ron Lee

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

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..

snip

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

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.

KB

"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.

"Michael" wrote

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.

Perhaps a mod needs to be made, either as a factory standard, or as and add on
STC modification, for a simple speed brake?

As you say, it would not be necessary for an experience pilot, but seeing who is
mainly flying them, .....
--
Jim in NC

"Peter Duniho" wrote

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).

Clue - Look at fleet size, then adjust for that, and come back with some more
meaningful statistics.

How many bazillion C172's are there out there, vs. Cirrus?
--
Jim in NC

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
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, from the reports I have seen about Cirrus crashes it is clearly
pilot error. Of course the same probably applies to all aircraft
types.

Yes, it does. I guess I should clarify that I am interpreting the statement
"the problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes" to mean that the Cirrus
has an unusual problem with the pilots as compared to other airplanes. I
agree that the statement "the problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes"
applies to pretty much any airplane. In that respect, the Cirrus is no
different from any other similar airplanes.

Pete

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
Clue - Look at fleet size, then adjust for that, and come back with some
more meaningful statistics.

The fleet size isn't nearly as relevant as total flight hours for the flight
over a span of time. And yes, I agree that the data is missing. However,
none of you have provided alternate data to support the claim that the
Cirrus is actually worse. And at first glance, the total number of Cirrus
accidents is MUCH lower than for Cessna accidents, which is exactly what one
would expect given the difference in fleet sizes.

Clue: when you are making accusations, the burden of proof is on YOU. If
you're going to claim that the accident rate is abnormally high, you need to
provide data to support that claim. Suggesting that the defense has
insufficient data isn't meaningful.

Pete

"Morgans" wrote:

"Michael" wrote

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.

Perhaps a mod needs to be made, either as a factory standard, or as and add on
STC modification, for a simple speed brake?

As you say, it would not be necessary for an experience pilot, but seeing who is
mainly flying them, .....
--
Jim in NC

My guess based upon recollection of several events is not that
problems are speed related but just poor judgement about when they
should be flying.

1) Night flight over mountainous terrain, high winds and turbulence.

2) Took off into IMC and deployed chute within minutes of take-off.

3) Apparent flight into forecast icing conditions

4) Flew into a building in NYC (idiot)

5) Apparently flew into amn area of forecast icing conditions.

There was a crash in late September in Colorado. Sounds like icing
conditions may have been a factor there as well:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...25X01387&key=1

Cirrus pilots are free to go and kill themselves as long as it does
not affect my insurance rate. But quit taking people with you.

Ron Lee