Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

C,

They find out why these planes are falling out of the sky with such
regularity


Well, I sure hope I never again see you complain here about
sensationalistic reporting on aviation accidents. Jeeze!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
C,

They find out why these planes are falling out of the sky with such
regularity


Well, I sure hope I never again see you complain here about
sensationalistic reporting on aviation accidents. Jeeze!

The fact is that the Cirrus currently owns one of the worst accident and
fatality rates of any small airplane.

Cirrus also now has a history of quality control problems, with some
aircraft being returned or sold for a pittance as lemons.

C,

The fact is that the Cirrus currently owns one of the worst accident and
fatality rates of any small airplane.


That still doesn't make them "fall out of the sky". And it's not even
true, depending on how you look at it.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

How do you look at it?



"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
C,

The fact is that the Cirrus currently owns one of the worst accident and
fatality rates of any small airplane.


That still doesn't make them "fall out of the sky". And it's not even
true, depending on how you look at it.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dude,

One way to look at it is total aircraft numbers versus aircraft with
fatal accidents - which is what Richard Collins does in the latest
issue of Flying. Cirrus is comparable to the 182S that way. Many other
planes are much worse. The one fatal accident after the mag appeared
doesn't change that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I would have to say that any plane is relatively safe while in the hangar.

This may be a way to look at it, but it would not be a way to find out
anything.

I have read many of your posts, and consider you bright and well informed.
However, I have to disagree with you on this one.

It is only the risk involved in USING the plane that we are discussing here.
The risk of OWNING the plane would be more of a financial issue. I don't
much about Mr. Colins, but he seems to be stretching on this one.

There is a case to be made that Cirrus as a company has done a lot to
rejuvenate general aviation, and that by hammering them we are only creating
an environment where other innovators will just be scared away. I think
that many in the press are willing to listen to Cirrus' arguments, and give
them a break for this reason.

I think that this forum would be a good place to get the facts straight
though. We have better alternatives - Diamond and Lancair. It may not be
true that every Cirrus sale comes at the expense of one of the others, but I
would be much happier seeing more of the other two brands being sold
instead.



"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Dude,

One way to look at it is total aircraft numbers versus aircraft with
fatal accidents - which is what Richard Collins does in the latest
issue of Flying. Cirrus is comparable to the 182S that way. Many other
planes are much worse. The one fatal accident after the mag appeared
doesn't change that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dude,

I have read many of your posts, and consider you bright and well informed.

Why, thanks! ;-)

It is only the risk involved in USING the plane that we are discussing here.
The risk of OWNING the plane would be more of a financial issue. I don't
much about Mr. Colins, but he seems to be stretching on this one.

You know, I agree. The problem, as we all know, of course, is that there is no
reliable count of hours flown. So anyone can amssage the numbers anyway he or
she likes. i still take strong objection to statements like "falling out of
the sky". That's BS any way you look at the numbers.

There is a case to be made that Cirrus as a company has done a lot to
rejuvenate general aviation, and that by hammering them we are only creating
an environment where other innovators will just be scared away.

Yes, I think that many pilots do tend to do that - while at the same time
clamoring for innovation.


I think that this forum would be a good place to get the facts straight
though. We have better alternatives - Diamond and Lancair.

Well, there are hardly any Lancairs flying, so in that case we really don't
have any numbers to go by, I would say. And the Diamond has a great record -
but hey, it's from Old Europe, so an all-American GA pilot can't well buy that
crap now, can he? (yes, that was irony, but a lot of truth in it for some
people...)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
C,

The fact is that the Cirrus currently owns one of the worst accident and
fatality rates of any small airplane.


That still doesn't make them "fall out of the sky". And it's not even
true, depending on how you look at it.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


I think "fall out of the sky" is a rather apt description. After all, if
one pulls the chute they do "fall out of the sky."

"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

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