Cirrus Death Trap?

Tom, I posted that off the top of my head based on stuff I have seen in
print, not official stuff and not statistics...
Since you challenged me I just now did a partial search of the NTSB on
the 20 fatals in SR-20's, which reveals that 3 were the result of
control system failure... At that point I quit looking as I don't have
an axe to grind, and 15% at minimum is enough to support my
impressions...I didn't look at SR-22 statistics...

denny

Denny wrote:

Since you challenged me I just now did a partial search of the NTSB on
the 20 fatals in SR-20's, which reveals that 3 were the result of
control system failure.

My recollection of these accidents is that at least two of those three
were a result of a mechanic incorrectly mounting the ailerons, not inherent
control system design flaws.


--
Peter

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2006-10-13, Mike wrote:
The type of aircraft he was in was utterly irrelevant. Smashing into a
building in a Cessna 150 is just as fatal as hitting a building in a
Cirrus, or a Learjet, or an ultralight.


How do you know the aircraft is irrelevant? Please post your source.

F=ma (force = mass x acceleration). Or in this case, deceleration.

A 100kg human in an ultralight travelling at 25 metres/sec hitting a
building and decelerating to zero in 0.5 sec (entirely plausable) will
experience a force of 100 * 50 newtons (5,000 newtons) in the initial
impact. Not to mention the bits of the building which are likely to
shatter and pierce the body. But a force of 5,000 newtons against a
human body is usually enough to kill. So it's pretty irrelevant whether
a plane is a slow one or a fast one like a Cirrus - slamming (to use
Lune's favorite word) into the side of a building is usually not going
to be survivable.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de


You've only argued that the type of aircraft was irrelevant at the
point of impact. I think we can all agree on that! But that dismisses
the possibility that this accident might not have happened if the
aircraft had been slower - like a C150. (more time to react and less
radius to turn, etc...). I don't believe this was a case of a pilot
blindly flying into an object that was not easily visible from the
cockpit (like hitting a mountain at night or in the fog). It seems
more likely that either they were incapable of making the required
tight turn (poor planning, staying ahead of the aircraft) and hit the
building while trying to turn, or they lost control for some unknown
reason (stall, aircraft malfunction, etc) and the building simply got
in the way of the uncontroled flight/fall to earth. In either of those
scenerios, aircraft type could very well be relevant.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

They sure make that sound terrible, don't they? Why, in just five
years, 3.3% of the SR-20 fleet has been lost to accidents, resulting in
14 deaths!

If automobiles suffered a similar rate over a similar period in the U. S.,
it would produce nearly 2 million deaths.

(Based on production of about 12M/year
http://www.automotive.com/features/9...435/index.html ).


What are the rates for comparable aircraft, such as the Columbia 300,
Skylane...?

Denny,

which reveals that 3 were the result of
control system failure.


Ah, but they don't show any pattern of any kind. One at least was
maintenance related.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Faster airplanes can still slow down and be flown. There is
a reason to practice minimum control airspeed and slow
flight. Traffic patterns are not the only time to pull the
power back and or put some flaps down. See and avoid and
scud running are much easier at 60-80 knots than at 180.
All single-engine airplanes are required to stall below 61
knots.
23.49
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, VSO
and VS1 at maximum weight must not exceed 61 knots for-

(1) Single-engine airplanes; and

(2) Multiengine airplanes of 6,000 pounds or less maximum
weight that cannot meet the minimum rate of climb specified
in §23.67(a) (1) with the critical engine inoperative.

(d) All single-engine airplanes, and those multiengine
airplanes of 6,000 pounds or less maximum weight with a VSO
of more than 61 knots that do not meet the requirements of
§23.67(a)(1), must comply with §23.562(d).



So any single can be flown at 90 knots and have a safety
margin in a 60 degree bank.

http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodyna...in_Radius.html



Remember the radius is in the middle of the river and you
need to be smaller radius than half the river's width.





wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Dylan Smith wrote:
| On 2006-10-13, Mike wrote:
| The type of aircraft he was in was utterly
irrelevant. Smashing into a
| building in a Cessna 150 is just as fatal as hitting
a building in a
| Cirrus, or a Learjet, or an ultralight.
|
|
| How do you know the aircraft is irrelevant? Please
post your source.
|
| F=ma (force = mass x acceleration). Or in this case,
deceleration.
|
| A 100kg human in an ultralight travelling at 25
metres/sec hitting a
| building and decelerating to zero in 0.5 sec (entirely
plausable) will
| experience a force of 100 * 50 newtons (5,000 newtons)
in the initial
| impact. Not to mention the bits of the building which
are likely to
| shatter and pierce the body. But a force of 5,000
newtons against a
| human body is usually enough to kill. So it's pretty
irrelevant whether
| a plane is a slow one or a fast one like a Cirrus -
slamming (to use
| Lune's favorite word) into the side of a building is
usually not going
| to be survivable.
|
| --
| Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
| Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:
http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
|
|
| You've only argued that the type of aircraft was
irrelevant at the
| point of impact. I think we can all agree on that! But
that dismisses
| the possibility that this accident might not have happened
if the
| aircraft had been slower - like a C150. (more time to
react and less
| radius to turn, etc...). I don't believe this was a case
of a pilot
| blindly flying into an object that was not easily visible
from the
| cockpit (like hitting a mountain at night or in the fog).
It seems
| more likely that either they were incapable of making the
required
| tight turn (poor planning, staying ahead of the aircraft)
and hit the
| building while trying to turn, or they lost control for
some unknown
| reason (stall, aircraft malfunction, etc) and the building
simply got
| in the way of the uncontroled flight/fall to earth. In
either of those
| scenerios, aircraft type could very well be relevant.
|

Joe Feise writes:

Bull. He did the right thing, realizing that he was a low-time pilot, and had a
flight instructor with him.

So why are they both dead?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Happy Dog writes:

Here's a guaranteed laugh:

What kind of plane do you suggest he should have been flying that would have
made this accident less likely?

I don't have enough information to make a suggestion.

If there's any increased overall risk in flying a Cirrus, it's the false
sense of security it may give some pilots flying IFR.

More generally, it's the the false sense of security it may give some
pilots.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Dylan Smith writes:

The type of aircraft he was in was utterly irrelevant. Smashing into a
building in a Cessna 150 is just as fatal as hitting a building in a
Cirrus, or a Learjet, or an ultralight.

But a Cessna 150 has no parachute to give inexperienced pilots the
impression that they are less likely to die in an accident.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Dylan Smith writes:

The type of aircraft he was in was utterly irrelevant. Smashing into a
building in a Cessna 150 is just as fatal as hitting a building in a
Cirrus, or a Learjet, or an ultralight.

But a Cessna 150 has no parachute to give inexperienced pilots the
impression that they are less likely to die in an accident.

Or experienced ones. And, it's irrelevant.

moo