That would be true, but that would be for ONE year. That is why you need
over a million flight hours before the numbers mean much. Had this sort of
thing been what was driving the numbers it would be obvious wouldn't it.
They have a big enough fleet now, so this argument isn't winning me over
like it did in the beginning.

Also, the training they are doing seems to be helping. However, if you
believe that the numbers are too small to be valuable, then perhaps we don't
know if the training is helping at all do we?

Also, its not the number of fatalaties that worries me as much as the number
of accidents that result in a fatality.

In fact, a valuable number that I have not seen studied would be the ration
of survivors for all souls on board for all accidents. That would tell you
a lot about the crash worthiness of the design. Except for people that
don't believe in statistics.



"David Megginson" wrote in message
news
Dude wrote:

My only agenda is safety, and frankly, Cirrus has a poor rating.

That's a tricky conclusion to draw from so little data. After all, if two
Cirrus planes have a midair, they might double the Cirrus fatal-accident
rate for that year.

The Cirrus is a new design, and any new technology is risky until people
acquire the experience to use it safely (look at the crashes and midair
breakups with the earliest jetliners). Unfortunately, there will have to
be
many more crashes before people are able to spot the
statistically-significant patterns (assuming that any exist) and put out
SB's and AD's, design new training methods, etc.


All the best,


David (a Piper owner, with no axe to grind either way)