Jim Logajan writes:

Objectivity of such an organization should be considered, but questioning
per se isn't an indictment or conviction of wrongful analysis or fact
cherry picking. One needs to point out the false factual claims or flawed
logic.

In this case, there's too much that's subjective about the judgment to prove
anything either way. From what I've seen, it looks like Cirrus has more
accidents than it should, and it seems that many Cirrus pilots are different
from average in lack of experience, lack of caution, or in other ways that
make them particularly prone to pilot error. However, the numbers can be
cooked and recooked to "prove" almost anything.

Even without looking at pilots, one need only look at Cirrus' marketing
strategy to be able to predict that it's going to attract the wrong kind of
people to flying their aircraft.

It's a bit like the flying car I just posted a link about in another new
thread. However, the flying car is unlikely to ever become any kind of
practicable reality, so there's no risk associated with the hype being built
around it.

Taken in the context of the entire article, the author appears to be
using the word "ultimate" in its "final" or "last" meanings. When CAPS is
deployed it pretty much _is_ the ultimate or final safety action a pilot
can take - after which she becomes (hopefully) a passive floating object.

I read yesterday that the descent rate of a Cirrus with the parachute deployed
is around 1700 fpm, far more than a competent pilot could manage by actually
flying the aircraft. And the maximum speed for deployment is 133 knots.

The parachute was originally installed to get past the fact that Cirrus
aircraft behave very poorly in spins. Cirrus marketing turned a liability into
an (apparent) asset, which is quite an accomplishment, but not one that I
think serves the public interest.

I haven't tried it, but you could do an experiment and force a spin or
stall on final on a normal landing on MS flight simulator and time how
long it takes to hit the ground (or pass 200 ft AGL.) I'd be interested
in your results.

I don't have a Cirrus, although Eaglesoft supposedly makes a nice one that
I've been thinking about (when I have the budget). Since the Cirrus simulation
would essentially be a simulation of two PC screens on another PC screen, I
have some doubts--it's hard to simulate all-in-one glass panels accurately,
unless one has access to the original source code or a great deal of time to
work on it.

MSFS also is not tops at simulating unusual flight regimes, given its
table-based design. I do note that Carenado's Cessnas seem to behave in a spin
just as the real aircraft supposedly behave, or at least they are difficult to
spin and easy to recover.

And yet the organization claims that the accident statistics of its
members is much lower than single engine GA in general.

That's what I would expect them to claim. It's hard to imagine that they are
completely unbiased. Other sources I've visited point out how the numbers can
be cooked.

In general, I am suspicious of companies that spend too much on marketing.
Cessna has been guilty of that a bit in the past and perhaps even today.
Beechcraft seems to be much more conservative. It seems that the high end
often spends money on quality and then lets the product speak for itself,
whereas the low end spends a lot more on marketing to conceal the shortcomings
of a product (not just in aviation, of course).