Cirrus... is it time for certification review?

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

Thomas Borchert wrote:

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

It ebbs and flows like a large body of water. Some weeks are good, others
are tough.

I always enjoy reading your perspective on these aircraft.

--
Peter

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:55:31 GMT, john smith wrote:

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

I don't think flying into icing conditions is time for a certification
review.


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

"V-Tail Bo"

Mitusbushi MU-2.

In each case, pilot training was found to be the highest contributing
issue. In the case of the Bonanza, some structural strengthening was
recommended.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"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.

"Kyle Boatright" wrote:

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


The problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes.

Simple answers are usually the correct one. The pilot is the problem.

Ron Lee

"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.

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

"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