"Dude" wrote in message
...
This is really going off topic, and the debate has been had but...

This is Usenet! Just 'cuz the horse is lyin' down and hasn't moved in a week
don't mean we can't kick it again


...

The SR22 is statistically safer than the 20, and both have been doing
better
since they started the factory training.

How is the sample size on this? I suspect that any 20 vs. 22 conjecture
is
statistically on shaky ground.


My statement on the 20 vs. 22 number is based on incidents and fatalities
per 100k hours. The fleet of 20's may not have a million hours which
seems
to be the least amount acceptable to the statistician types. Those who
refuse to accept the data generally want a different number. The pro
Cirrus
crowd thinks you should ignore all the data before a certain number, and
ignore CFIT accidents. The Cessna Beech crowd want an ever growing
history.
In other words, to compare to their planes you need 20 years of records
and
will need 30 years in another ten, etc. etc.

There's another rule in statistics that the smallest sample about which you
can make a statistically sound statement is 30. It's statistically dubious
to draw assumptions from very small samples but there's also a point of
diminishing returns to having ever-larger sample sizes.

I can't find anything wrong with your statements here, and I tend to
agree.
However, the Brothers in Minnesota are still happy to sell an SR22 to
anyone
willing to pay for the plane and the training.

Just as a Ford dealer will happily sell a 300HP Mustang to a 17 year-old
boy. It's the insurance companies that have a stake in not seeing either
party drive into a telephone pole metaphorically or otherwise. Problem is
that the way the insurance market works there was a real risk that the plane
could become almost uninsurable by any pilot. Anyway, it's long been the
insurance companies who determine what constitutes a "qualified pilot," and
rightly so, as they're the only ones who have a financial stake in the
successful outcome of the flight.

Again, I agree. Unfortunately, the Cirrus owners cry fowl at this heresy
because they say the plane is easy to land. I say its as slick as a
Mooney,
and they are a great help in a Mooney.

And in the transition from enroute to approach, which is the first really
big opportunity for a pilot to get behind the airplane. I think the only
thing it says about the airplane is that it's fast. You don't see
speedbrakes on Saratogas for a reason.

Certainly. I wonder about judgement though. Also, there is something to
be
said for having your first "OH S#*T" experience in something that is
slower
and more stable (not to mention crash worthy).

Well, let's be fair and say that there are a significant body of "OH S#*T"
experiences that are more survivable in a Cirrus than anything else. Of
course, from the insurance company's perspective, a total hull loss is a
total hull loss, whether it's due to CAPS or an engine-out night landing in
the mountains.

I would love to have my hands on an SR-22, but right now, as a 200-hour
instrument pilot, I feel like my 172 is enough for me to deal with. I'd love
to upgrade to a 182, but I think that would be plenty for at least another
300 hours.

-cwk.