If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... Dude, I have read many of your posts, and consider you bright and well informed. Why, thanks! ;-) Your Welcome It is only the risk involved in USING the plane that we are discussing here. The risk of OWNING the plane would be more of a financial issue. I don't much about Mr. Colins, but he seems to be stretching on this one. You know, I agree. The problem, as we all know, of course, is that there is no reliable count of hours flown. So anyone can amssage the numbers anyway he or she likes. i still take strong objection to statements like "falling out of the sky". That's BS any way you look at the numbers. Ahh, there is the rub. It is tought to estimate fleet hours. I just don't think that the people making the estimates have a bone to pick on this one. Yes, Falling out of the sky is hyperbole, and a bad parachute pun. There is a case to be made that Cirrus as a company has done a lot to rejuvenate general aviation, and that by hammering them we are only creating an environment where other innovators will just be scared away. Yes, I think that many pilots do tend to do that - while at the same time clamoring for innovation. I think that this forum would be a good place to get the facts straight though. We have better alternatives - Diamond and Lancair. Well, there are hardly any Lancairs flying, so in that case we really don't have any numbers to go by, I would say. And the Diamond has a great record - but hey, it's from Old Europe, so an all-American GA pilot can't well buy that crap now, can he? (yes, that was irony, but a lot of truth in it for some people...) The reports on the Lancair so far are that it flies much like the Diamond Star in stall. If anyone hasn't stalled a Diamond, they should go rent one. If Lancair can do that and still get the speed - God Bless Them! -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:12:43 -0400, Peter R.
wrote: The question that will never be answered is why didn't they use the BRS? Why do you assume they didn't. At the time of that crash Cirrus had a history of parachute deployment failures. One under actual and 2 during a factory sponsored demonstration to prove the system worked.. After that the deployment mechanism in the entire fleet was replaced with an AD. The last SB that I am aware of for the parachute was issued less then 6 months ago. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
ArtP ) wrote:
The question that will never be answered is why didn't they use the BRS? Why do you assume they didn't. At the time of that crash Cirrus had a history of parachute deployment failures. One under actual and 2 during a factory sponsored demonstration to prove the system worked.. After that the deployment mechanism in the entire fleet was replaced with an AD. The last SB that I am aware of for the parachute was issued less then 6 months ago. Good point. The above questions should read: "Why did the BRS fail to deploy during the spin?" Was it the PIC's decision or a failure of the deployment system? This very issue is going to be argued in court, as the wife of one of the pilots is suing Cirrus on the grounds that a defect may have prevented the deployment of the 'chute. -- Peter |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
In article 1082997048.902464@sj-nntpcache-3, John Harper
wrote: At this point in just about any plane, Muller-Beggs will work fine (let go of everything and wait). NOT TRUE!!! Go back and re read Gene Beggs' SPORT AEROBATIC articles. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
What do you mean, "go back"? I've never read them in the
first place... "EDR" wrote in message ... In article 1082997048.902464@sj-nntpcache-3, John Harper wrote: At this point in just about any plane, Muller-Beggs will work fine (let go of everything and wait). NOT TRUE!!! Go back and re read Gene Beggs' SPORT AEROBATIC articles. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
I seem to remember the Bellanca Super Viking or may the turbo-Super came
with 300 ponys up front. Of course that uses pretty old, cloth covered technology. Surely the Cirrus is much faster since it is new technology (laughing with tongue in cheek)... -- Jim Carter Seen on a bumper sticker: If you can read this, thank a teacher If you can read this in English, thank a soldier. "Jeff" wrote in message ... Dennis the SR22 is fast compared to other planes with smaller engines, but compare it to a plane with the same 310 HP engine, I dont think you will see much speed difference. what other planes out there have a 310 HP engine? Dennis wrote: Holy crap! I guess I should have done some more research first... I really, really, really like the performance spec's and looks of the Currus.. My wife read your comment and now she's put off on the idea... Gonna have to find something else now before she but the breaks on a new plane purchase.. Dennis N3868J MyAirplane.com "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... I personally would not buy one of these airplanes until: 1) The airframe life limit of 4,030 hours is rescinded or at least tripled; and 2) They find out why these planes are falling out of the sky with such regularity and do something about it. If this behavior keeps up, the FAA is likely to ground the entire fleet; and 3) Something is done about the atrocious quality control problems that Cirrus has been having. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Edr,
The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin without pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests As I thought: nowhere does it say it "cannot recover from a spin without pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests". It says "has not been demonstrated". There's a subtle but important difference. Oh, and a question: Using the common method of spin recovery from a one turn spin on, say, a Bonanza, what's the altitude loss? Less than 920 feet? Much less? I wouldn't think so. There goes the coffin corner... -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:23:46 +0000, EDR wrote:
1. CAPS .................................................. Activate To me, that seems to spell out, if you're in a spin at less than 900ft, you better use CAPS or you're toast. Furthermore, it spells out, if you're in that situation, don't bother trying to recover. Just use CAPS. I'd have to give the point to EDR. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
How much does it take to recover from a spin in a Mooney or in a C172?
And also who's going to recover in a low and slow, steep angle of bank when turning bas or final? FW "Michael" wrote in message om... "C J Campbell" wrote Therefore, the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin when below 900' AGL. Many other aircraft can. Name one aircraft that can cruise better than 170 kts, carry four people, and can recover from a spin at 900 AGL. Michael |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Katz" wrote in message ... "Dude" writes: though there isn't much data on the crash in Spain) were CFIT. Hard to blame these on the plane per se. "per se"? Trying to separate out the "plane is a death trap" argument from the "plane attracts idiots" argument. Accusing those of us who think the statistics are relevant of hyperbole will not save any lives, nor win the argument. The fatalities per 100,000 flight hours stat is a very valid and fair stat. And like all statistics it says only what it says, and drawing conclusions from a statistic (particularly a single one) is very risky. You have to ask a series of questions: What does the statistic actually measure? Fatal accidents per 100,000 hours of flight. Is the measurement statistically significant? The standard appears to be that the measurement is not valid until 1,000,000 hours are reached. Are similar statistics comparable, and what do the comparisons mean? This stat does paint with a broad brush, but if all you are looking for is a measure of average safety in average usage by average pilots (that fly that plane) then the measure is very accurate. Yes, if you compare two models that are used by vastly different skill levels or in different types of missions, then you may invalidate the data by means of asking the wrong question. That is not being done here at all. What does the statistic have to say as a predictor for an individual (which is really what people are concerned with)? Unless you are one of those people who believes you are above average, then it means a lot. What makes one person who buys and flies a Cirrus all that different from another? What about comparing them to other brands of new airplanes buyers? There is no obvious difference, you will have to propose one. This is not a picky little nit type of stat. Saying that Cirrus just attracts idiot pilots is not enough, you need say why. I haven't seen a good reason yet. For example, if there's never been a fatality in a DA40, does that mean that a Cirrus is infinitely more dangerous? No, too little data on the DA40, and no, infinite would be silly. If it turns out that lots of idiots by Cirrus aircraft, does that mean that if you decide to buy one then you as an individual are more likely to become an idiot? NO! my point exactly. They are likely much the same as the Lancair, 182, DA40, Piper 6, etc. (perhaps in the case of the 40 you get more beginners as they can get insurance). The statistics (assuming that they pass significance tests) really tell you only that something is going on, but they can't tell you what. This is a red flag to go and actually examine the accident records and try to make an honest evaluation and decide for yourself what they mean to you. That would be true, except that examining the records tell us nothing. You should rely on the BIG RED FLAG! Seriously. If they had a common thread that was fixed, I would grant an exceptional case (aka V tail break ups). Until then, no. Once again, you can't take out the "stupidity factor" from one manufacturer's stats, and not the others. I fully agree, and herein lies the heart of the issue. Since there is no independent "idiots per 100,000 pilots" statistic measured, it's very difficult to quantitatively describe it. Furthermore, an anecdotal analysis of GA accidents gives the impression that the "stupidity factor" overwhelms all other contributors, which implies that the planes, per se (there's that phrase again) are not a major part of the problem. So unless the plane causes you to become an idiot, as an individual thinking of purchasing one the statistics say almost nothing about how much risk the plane itself poses to you in particular. My point is that the stat is such a large macro that the idiot factor gets rounded out. As an average idiot, we are all more likely to die flying a Cirrus, than we are flying a 182. We are all average idiots in this stat. It is too big to slice apart that way. I believe they are over a million fleet hours, and I am told that is generally considered the time at which the numbers become valid. This would imply an average of somewhere around 700 hours per aircraft, which is way off the mark, considering that probably close to half of the fleet was delivered in the last year. I suspect that the fleet time is at most probably half of that, but of course we're just making up numbers since this is never actually measured. Another would be that everyone of us is likely to decide that we are not one of those idiots. In fact, the ones that are dead likely thought that. "Aviation, where all of the children are above average." ;-) Either the design is safe or it is not. C'mon, this is patently and obviously not true, unless your measure of "safe" is "nothing bad ever happens" in which case all designs are unsafe. Short of pieces coming off, it's almost impossible to measure safety, except in very specific ways (things like impact tests, though those are not necessarily predictors of anything useful either) or very general ways (statistics, which don't tell you much.) No, all you have to do is set a standard. How much more risk are you willing to take on your flight to enjoy the Cirrus over the Cessna? If its double, go for it. In my standard, I find the high fatality rate unacceptable when compared to the ancient Cessna. It should be better. There is almost no practical way to prove the cause without changing the results. Therefore, the design is bad until it is found to be performing more safely. If Cirrus implements a change, and then gets different results, then we can talk again. (the parachute fix seems to have helped). I think you're overreaching logically here. Perhaps I can restate it: if there is a statistically significant difference in (accidents, fatalities, choose your measure) then there is likely to be some factor or factors that could be changed to reduce it. It's not just "design" or training or even marketing; it's also things like low time-in-type and mission profile (long XCs may be inherently more risky due to unfamiliar terrain, multiple weather systems, etc.) I don't see that a design change of the physical airplane will keep people from doing stupid stuff (I suppose TAWS might reduce CFIT accidents, but people would scream "crutch," which I agree with to a point, though I suspect it will be standard in the avionics before long.) Cirrus has implemented changes to the training program, and COPA has provided a number of resources, including recurrent training and critical decisionmaking seminars, and a number of the insurance underwriters are raising requirements for time and training. Whether these changes will reduce the accident rate (or have already) will take another chunk of time to determine. There are a few data points, however; the rate of landing accidents (prop strikes, etc.) seem to have dropped since they got rid of the original training organization and started stressing speed and landing attitude control more. The situation is not static by any means. Those are all good, but how does that compare with the Cessna which requires a very small time of dual instruction for familiarity? Diamond? Lancair? Cirrus gets this level of scrutiny by running around BRAGGING about the safe design of their plane with a chute. In his interview I recently read, Mr. K was all about how great his airfoil is. Also, they get this scrutiny because they have high fatalites. If the problem is indeed personality, perhaps they are selling the planes to the wrong people. I would not necessarily disagree that this is the case except to point out that they are not changing their sales practices and other than looking at experience levels what are you going to do anyway. I don't think either of us have any facts as to whether or not Cirrus is changing their sales practices. And as you note, it's also not clear how a sales rep is supposed to determine whether a customer is a "wrong person" or not; they're not psychologists or mind readers, so short of someone's experience level (or at least how they represent it, as they're not getting a background investigation) there's not much to go on, and it's unclear that overall experience levels correlate with the accidents in any case. Cirrus could get some good PR by simply dropping the SRV idea, and requiring a high level of hours to buy their SR20 and SR22. I don't see this happening, so I guess we will have a bunch more Thurman Munson Jr.'s. It's unclear that this would actually help. One could make a case that an SR20 or SRV would be an excellent aircraft in which to take primary and instrument training, assuming that the pilot understands that the process will take longer than it would in a 152. Typical trainers are more forgiving, but after the first ten hours I'd argue that this is a detriment, as it allows all kinds of bad habits (like the 50' AGL roundout) to develop. Teaching speed discipline on landing, and getting early and thorough exposure to the avionics, could well make them better pilots. There are a fair number of pilots who bought an SR20 to learn in, and so far as I know, none of them have come to a tragic end. As such, their statistics look excellent, for what that's worth. Well, I think the SRV and SR 20 would be better placed in the hands of more experienced folk. Since I don't see too many of those folk clamoring for a VFR only, glass cockpit, nearly 200k plane, I say they are using it to attract low time pilots. I think the days of students buying a Cirrus heve been nixxed by the insurers. The SR22 is arguably too much of a handful as a primary trainer, though a few people have done it. The insurance people are the main gatekeepers in this case. The number of low-total-time pilots flying SR22s is probably quite small. Arguably? Definitely. You may note the 22 is doing better than the 20 in the stats. I think this is because, as I have heard from more than one low time prospective Cirrus buyer, the plane scares them. The 22 must have higher time pilots at the yoke. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
New Cirrus SR22 Lead Time | Lenny Sawyer | Owning | 4 | March 6th 04 09:22 AM |
Fractional Ownership - Cirrus SR22 | Rich Raine | Owning | 3 | December 24th 03 05:36 AM |
New Cessna panel | C J Campbell | Owning | 48 | October 24th 03 04:43 PM |