According to Aviation Safety, the SR20 is nearly 4 times more dangerous than
the 182s/182t

I would really like someone to tell me how you can look at these stats and
see something less than 4 fatalities every 100,000 hours?

The Cirrus fleet has enough hours now that the stats actually mean
something. They have not found and corrected any major flaw except to fix
the parachute. If I am going to buy a plane with a parachute, I certainly
don't want it to be because the plane would be otherwise unsafe.

The best way for us to see if chutes add safety would be for Cessna to add
it as an option on the 182. Unless someone else other than Cirrus puts them
on a plane, I am afraid the chute may get a bad name.

Mr. Collins may be a well respected expert, but if he disagrees with the
basic numbers, he is in error.






"Mike Murdock" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
..
.
The fact is that the Cirrus currently owns one of the worst accident and
fatality rates of any small airplane.

This is an outrageous statement! Can you post any facts showing the
accident and fatality rates of Cirrus airplanes vs. comparable aircraft?
If
you examine the real numbers you will find that your statement is patently
false.

No less an authority than Richard Collins of "Flying" magazine disagrees
with you. In the May, 2004 issue, he said that the safety record of
Cirrus
airplanes has been "about the same" as those of Cessna 182s manufactured
between 2000 and 2003. He also said, "That's good, really good, because
the
182 has always had the best safety record of any piston airplane used for
purposeful personal transportation."

Mr. Collins' article was a followup to his earlier article that was
questioning the safety of Cirrus aircraft.

-Mike