Cirrus attracting pilots with 'The Wrong Stuff'?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:OiQhc.2643$aQ6.415323@attbi_s51...

What's the group-think on this one? Is Cirrus just good at attracting
crappy pilots? Or is there something else at work here?

I have met 2 Cirrus pilots in recent months and both fit the profile
you described. Relatively low time pilots with a lot of spare cash.

To me, this looks a lot like what happened when Piper introduced the
Malibu. It could be flown by low timers with just a HP and Complex
endorsement. There was a rash of accidents involving overstressing of
the airframe after the airplane got away from the pilot in turbulence
or IMC. Unlike our lowly spam cans, the Malibu had a large gap
between normal cruising speed and manuevering speed. If the plane
got away from the pilot in cruise, it could not be horsed back into
line like a Cherokee or 172.

I think this problem was eventually solved by the insurance
companies requiring a level of training that was more appropriate to
the airplane type. My bet is that something similar will happen with
the Cirrus.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:OiQhc.2643$aQ6.415323@attbi_s51...
There's been some discussion here about Cirrus' less-than-stellar safety
record. Someone mentioned that perhaps the Cirrus line, with all of its
whiz-bang electronics and slippery airframe, is attracting the "wrong"
kind
of pilots -- meaning, perhaps, too much cash and not enough sense?

I've always heard this same thing said about the Bonanza (the "Fork-tailed
doctor killer") -- but recent accident stats for the Bo don't appear to
bear
this out.

Look at the difference in accident statistic differences between the V35 and
the F33: BIG difference.

Two data points that don't mean much: The only two guys I have personally
known to have bought a Cirrus PRECISELY fit this description. Both guys
have tons of money, not enough free time to stay current, and fly
complicated, long-distance flights on the rare occasions they fly at all.

What's the group-think on this one? Is Cirrus just good at attracting
crappy pilots? Or is there something else at work here?

I'd equate the Cirrus and the V35: good designs but not for the
occasional/inexperience/arrogant pilot.

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
I am not at liberty to answer you because I know some Cirrus pilots
myself.
--
Uh huh, "But some of my best friends are Cirrus pilots!" :~)

Bull****! I have flown the SR22 and I thought it handled quite
nicely. I question the piloting skills of anyone who would say
something as inane about it as the bald tire bit listed below. It
wasn't any harder to fly than a Piper Archer II.

Dean

"Michael 182" wrote in message news:3RQhc.2723$_L6.433903@attbi_s53...
I haven't flown a Cirrus, ;( , so I can't speak to the flying
characteristics. But the flight characteristics offered by "Toly":

"but in the air the plane is very slippery and feels like it's skating on
ice, only in three dimensions"

sounds like a recipe for disaster, especially for a pilot that is rusty. One
of the things I really like about my TR182 is that it like flying a rock.
Yes, it is boring, and I have thought lately about trading it in for a fun
airplane like a Maule or Citabria - but, in it's defense, when I haven't
flown for a while it is incredibly forgiving of imperfect piloting.

Michael

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:OiQhc.2643$aQ6.415323@attbi_s51...
There's been some discussion here about Cirrus' less-than-stellar safety
record. snip

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
"Flying" reports that the accident rate is plummeting and quickly
approaching 182 territory.

That's no longer true after three accidents in less than a week.

Huh? What "bald tire" bit?


"Dean Wilkinson" wrote in message
m...
Bull****! I have flown the SR22 and I thought it handled quite
nicely. I question the piloting skills of anyone who would say
something as inane about it as the bald tire bit listed below. It
wasn't any harder to fly than a Piper Archer II.

Dean

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:3RQhc.2723$_L6.433903@attbi_s53...
I haven't flown a Cirrus, ;( , so I can't speak to the flying
characteristics. But the flight characteristics offered by "Toly":

"but in the air the plane is very slippery and feels like it's skating
on
ice, only in three dimensions"

sounds like a recipe for disaster, especially for a pilot that is rusty.
One
of the things I really like about my TR182 is that it like flying a
rock.
Yes, it is boring, and I have thought lately about trading it in for a
fun
airplane like a Maule or Citabria - but, in it's defense, when I haven't
flown for a while it is incredibly forgiving of imperfect piloting.

Michael

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:OiQhc.2643$aQ6.415323@attbi_s51...
There's been some discussion here about Cirrus' less-than-stellar
safety
record. snip

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
"Flying" reports that the accident rate is plummeting and quickly
approaching 182 territory.

The Cirrus has 300% more fatal accidents than the new Cessna 182S. The
Cirrus has 8 fatals and the 182 has 7. The 182's fleet is three times
bigger than the Cirrus.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

"Roger Long" om wrote
in
message ...
"Flying" reports that the accident rate is plummeting and quickly
approaching 182 territory.

The Cirrus has 300% more fatal accidents than the new Cessna 182S. The
Cirrus has 8 fatals and the 182 has 7. The 182's fleet is three times
bigger than the Cirrus.

Transititioning from something else to a 182 is, what, 10-20 hours at most?
Wonder what an adequate transition time for a Cirrus would be?

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
I've always heard this same thing said about the Bonanza...
but recent accident stats for the Bo don't appear to bear
this out.

Actually, A36s are having a spell as bad as Cirruses over the last year
or so, but anyhow...

This (Cirrus accident rate) is starting to look like exactly what you
were talking about in the subject line, i.e. a pilot problem. There's
no trend in the accidents that points to any obvious Cirrus flaw except
one: marketing. The Cirrus aircraft are touted as an escape from the
bad old days of GA, so much safer because of their sophisticated
avionics, simple controls, crashworthy cabins and ballistic parachutes.
Starry-eyed, well-heeled pilots are going for all this in a big way.
But all this cool new stuff doesn't change a thing about the way
airplanes fly. Pilots who are seduced by the safety hype seem to be
trying to exploit an edge the airplanes really aren't giving them, and
it's getting some of them killed.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
I've always heard this same thing said about the Bonanza (the "Fork-tailed
doctor killer") -- but recent accident stats for the Bo don't appear to
bear
this out.

A good friend of mine has sold his Cherokee and is getting "training" in a
Bo almost as I speak. He intends to buy into a partnership with his buddy
who is the current owner and "acting CFI."

This "CFI" hasn't had a certificate in years (bipolar) but flies his Bo
regularly. He's got a ton of hours but has never been a CFI. He's so good
that he brags of taking naps while Otto flies the plane for him. He ran out
of fuel some months ago when he slept through the "E" on the fuel gauge.
Landed in a field. No significant damage. Had the plane towed away before
authorities found out about it.

I've almost come to the conclusion that there are a very large, almost
terrifying number of pilots who fall into the category defined by my friend
and his bipolar buddy.

I've no doubt that lot's of 'em fly Cirrus' (or is it "Cirii"?) Bo's 182's
and Cherokees.

--
Jim Fisher