Cirrus down, Chapel Hill NC

Ron Wanttaja writes:

No. Their accident rate is less than that of Cessna 172s manufactured
over the same time period.

But there are far more Cessna 172s actually flying. About 43,000 of them have
been built, and more than 26,000 are still registered.

In 2009, there were 23 Cirrus accidents, vs. 3699 aircraft registered as
of January 2010. There were 3003 Cessna 172s on the registry that had
been manufactured since production restarted in the '90s. The NTSB
accident listing for 2009 shows 23 Cessna 172S models and four 172R models.

Cirrus: 23/3699 = 0.62%

New-Production 172s: 27/3003 = 0.89%

Why are you counting only new-production Cessna 172s? What about the other
26,000 Cessna 172s that are still flying?

If all Cessna 172s in service are compared to all Cirrus aircraft in service,
then the accident rate for Cirrus aircraft is about ten times greater than
that of Cessna 172s.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Wanttaja writes:

Cirrus: 23/3699 = 0.62%

New-Production 172s: 27/3003 = 0.89%

Why are you counting only new-production Cessna 172s? What about the other
26,000 Cessna 172s that are still flying?

Just because they're registered doesn't mean they're still flying. You
come up with a good way to tell how many are still flying, and we'll
have an apples-to-apples comparison.

Keep in mind that the FAA does not cancel an aircraft's registration
after a crash. Being on the registry doesn't mean the airplane even exists.

As a point of interest, there are more 50+ year-old Cessna 172s on the
rolls than there are new-production models. A third of them haven't
changed ownership in the past 20 years. Satisfied owners...or inactive
aircraft?

In 2009, there were 26,228 Cessnas of all vintages on the FAA rolls, and
115 accidents. This is a rate of about 0.43%...the Cirrus was about 50%
higher, but the new-production 172s had TWICE the accident rate of the
overall fleet.

Should we conclude that there's something wrong with the new-production
172s? Or is just in the way Cessna markets them?

Comparing new-production 172s avoids the active/inactive issues. The
172 came back into production within a few years of the Cirrus, thus the
two types should be evenly affected by the active/inactive aircraft.

The FAA has started an initiative to clean up the registry. We will
probably be seeing the total number of GA aircraft drop over the next
several years.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja writes:

Just because they're registered doesn't mean they're still flying. You
come up with a good way to tell how many are still flying, and we'll
have an apples-to-apples comparison.

So how do you know that all those Cirrus aircraft are flying?

As a point of interest, there are more 50+ year-old Cessna 172s on the
rolls than there are new-production models. A third of them haven't
changed ownership in the past 20 years. Satisfied owners...or inactive
aircraft?

My guess is the former. Just because an airplane has had the same owner for 20
years hardly means that it isn't being used.

In 2009, there were 26,228 Cessnas of all vintages on the FAA rolls, and
115 accidents. This is a rate of about 0.43%...the Cirrus was about 50%
higher, but the new-production 172s had TWICE the accident rate of the
overall fleet.

So?

Should we conclude that there's something wrong with the new-production
172s? Or is just in the way Cessna markets them?

Why not just look at the way they are marketed? The problems with Cirrus'
marketing are obvious.

Comparing new-production 172s avoids the active/inactive issues.

And helps massage the numbers to make Cirrus look better.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Why are you counting only new-production Cessna 172s?

In order to get a somewhat valid comparison.

The numbers of both built are in the same ballpark and the ages are comparable
so the same percentage of both are likely still flying.

What about the other
26,000 Cessna 172s that are still flying?

Because no one knows how many of them are still flying.

If you had ever visited any real airports you would know there are lots of
airplanes that exist on the records but don't fly, or even exist anymore.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

In order to get a somewhat valid comparison.

What's invalid about comparing all Cessnas?

The numbers of both built are in the same ballpark and the ages are comparable
so the same percentage of both are likely still flying.

What evidence is there that older aircraft are not being flown?

Because no one knows how many of them are still flying.

Nobody knows how many of the new aircraft are flying, either.

If you had ever visited any real airports you would know there are lots of
airplanes that exist on the records but don't fly, or even exist anymore.

Why would Cessnas produced before Cirrus was around be especially prone to
non-flying status?

How about comparing Cirrus with Diamond? Both companies are about the same
age. Which has more accidents?

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

In order to get a somewhat valid comparison.

What's invalid about comparing all Cessnas?

As the airplane gets older, the odds that it is not flying gets higher.

The numbers of both built are in the same ballpark and the ages are comparable
so the same percentage of both are likely still flying.

What evidence is there that older aircraft are not being flown?

Simple observation at any GA airport.

Because no one knows how many of them are still flying.

Nobody knows how many of the new aircraft are flying, either.

By comparing comperable age aircraft, the likelyhood is that the non-flying
fractions are both smaller and more likely equal.

If you had ever visited any real airports you would know there are lots of
airplanes that exist on the records but don't fly, or even exist anymore.

Why would Cessnas produced before Cirrus was around be especially prone to
non-flying status?

Because they are old, because the owners are likely old and have stopped
flying.

By comparing aircraft produced during the same period those differences
go away and you get a true comparison.

How about comparing Cirrus with Diamond?

Why?

Are you finally realizing your statements are not backed up by fact and
now you want to change the subject?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jul 15, 1:31*pm, wrote:

Are you finally realizing your statements are not backed up by fact and
now you want to change the subject?

They never are backed up with statements as shown consistently in this
thread and when called to task, he answers a question with a question
as a diversion to the root of the problem and that he hasn't a clue
what he talks about in the real world of aviation.

writes:

As the airplane gets older, the odds that it is not flying gets higher.

Are you sure? Where did you acquire this information?

Simple observation at any GA airport.

How do you determine the flying history and age of an aircraft by simple
observation?

By comparing comperable age aircraft, the likelyhood is that the non-flying
fractions are both smaller and more likely equal.

How do you know that?

Because they are old, because the owners are likely old and have stopped
flying.

How do you know this?

Why?

Because comparing Cirrus with Diamond would make it harder to manipulate the
numbers to conceal any higher accident rate with Cirrus.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

As the airplane gets older, the odds that it is not flying gets higher.

Are you sure? Where did you acquire this information?

Simple observation at any GA airport.

How do you determine the flying history and age of an aircraft by simple
observation?

By comparing comperable age aircraft, the likelyhood is that the
non-flying
fractions are both smaller and more likely equal.

How do you know that?

Because they are old, because the owners are likely old and have stopped
flying.

How do you know this?

Why?

Because comparing Cirrus with Diamond would make it harder to manipulate
the
numbers to conceal any higher accident rate with Cirrus.

Those of us who use, or have used, the equipment find it pretty essy and
surprisingly accurate. It works pretty well for boats, cars and trucks, and
even lawnmowers as well.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

As the airplane gets older, the odds that it is not flying gets higher.

Are you sure? Where did you acquire this information?

Life and the fact that the FAA acknowledges the fact that there are a lot
of registered but not flying, or even existing, aircraft.

Simple observation at any GA airport.

How do you determine the flying history and age of an aircraft by simple
observation?

If you had ever been to a GA airport, you wouldn't ask such a stupid
question.

By comparing comperable age aircraft, the likelyhood is that the non-flying
fractions are both smaller and more likely equal.

How do you know that?

It is obvious.

Because they are old, because the owners are likely old and have stopped
flying.

How do you know this?

Simple observation at any GA airport.

Why?

Because comparing Cirrus with Diamond would make it harder to manipulate the
numbers to conceal any higher accident rate with Cirrus.

Babbling nonsense.

Both of your "comparisons" are bogus from the start.

It has been well documented that the faster and more complex an aircraft is,
the higher the accident rate.

Comparing Cirrus to a C172 or anything Diamond makes is nonsense as the
Cirrus is a fast, complex airplane.




--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.