Cirrus attracting pilots with 'The Wrong Stuff'?

The fatality rate for the SR-20/22 is high. High performance (200/310
HP), high tech cockpit (Glass Primary Flight/Multi-Functional Displays)
with a Joy Stick. This aircraft is not for the new pilot. Training and
experience is a must. Properly trained, this aircraft rock 'n rolls.

Mike $$$ (PA-28)

Mike,

The fatality rate for the SR-20/22 is high.


AOPA ePilot of today disagrees.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

The fatality rate for the SR-20/22 is high.


AOPA ePilot of today disagrees.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Did they back up the claim with any supporting data?

Tom,
I agree and disagree with AOPA ePilot.

Compared Cirrus SR 20/22 with Lancair 300/400 series, which appear to be
similar aircraft in design, manufacture, performance, and equipment.
Neither can be compared to Cessna/Piper/Beech in design or concept.

Even though the Lancair 300 has been flying longer than the Cirrus SR,
Lancair 300/400 has only two (2) NTSB accident/incident reports with one
(1) fatal, compared to Cirrus SR 20/22 having eighteen (18) reports with
eight (8) fatal. This seems significant to me.

I will add that of the nine (9) fatal accident reports, NTSB determined
pilot error with regard to weather, loss of situational awareness, or
improper technique as the cause, except for one accident. NTSB
determined that the cause was attributed to a design flaw by Cirrus.
This seems significant to me.

Mike $$$ (PA28)

Mike,

Even though the Lancair 300 has been flying longer than the Cirrus SR,
Lancair 300/400 has only two (2) NTSB accident/incident reports with one
(1) fatal, compared to Cirrus SR 20/22 having eighteen (18) reports with
eight (8) fatal. This seems significant to me.


How do you arrive at that conclusion? What does "has been flying longer"
mean? The Cirruses have flown way more hours than the Lancair fleet. There
are virtually no Lancairs out there in the field. Those numbers are
certainly too low to conclude anything from them.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Read Collin's artilce in the latest FLYING.
He compares the number of aircraft produced since 1997 with the number
of accidents to arrive at his summation.
Just because Lancair is a similar design may not be significant if they
have not produced a comparable number of aircraft.

Edr,

I refuse to read Collins, sorry. He's just too biased in all he writes.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Tom Borchert asks:

What does "have been flying longer" mean?

Mike: Cirrus SR series first delivered 1999. Lancair 300 series first
delivered 1992.

Tom: The Cirruses have flown way more hours than the Lancair fleet.

Mike: I don't know.

Tom: There are virtually no Lancairs out there in the field.

Mike: Cirrus has 1000 units delivered. Lancair has 1870 units
delivered.

Tom: These numbers are certainly too low to conclude anything from
them.

Mike: I agree.

I used the Lancair 300 for comparison due to the similarity with the
Cirrus SR.

I am impressed with the Cirrus SR. It represents a major advance in
design and concept for GA. Use of composites and state-of-the-art
avionics, not to mention the speed and rate-of-climb performance is a
giant leap forward.

I am perplexed to the negative comments about this airplane. There are
no stats to support a negative image. NTSB reports 18 total
accident/incidents, with 8 being fatal. Of the fatal accidents, one was
during test, and all the others were pilot error. If you review each of
the 7 other accident reports, there is nothing to indicate that the
airplane contributed to the fatality, and that unfortunately the Cirrus
pilots made the same mistakes made by other pilots flying other
airplanes.

Mike $$$ (PA28)

You've neatly taken this discussion full circle. (Beats what
usually happens with long threads!)

The original question was, how come this type, which on the
face of it is a perfectly normal, reasonable plane (just about
anybody who has flown one would agree with that) has such a
high accident rate per whatever? And a summary of the discussion
is, various people have opinions, mostly to do with the kind of
people who are tempted to buy a Cirrus, but nobody really knows.
Does buying a Cirrus suddenly multiply your chances of flying
into a mountain on the hairy edge of the scud? Seems pretty
improbable. Of the various incidents, only one is definitely down
the plane, and that was faulty maintenance. The rest all appear
to be pilot error (or just plain unknown/unknowable).

I guess we're done.

John


"Mike Money" wrote in message
...
Tom Borchert asks:

What does "have been flying longer" mean?

Mike: Cirrus SR series first delivered 1999. Lancair 300 series first
delivered 1992.

Tom: The Cirruses have flown way more hours than the Lancair fleet.

Mike: I don't know.

Tom: There are virtually no Lancairs out there in the field.

Mike: Cirrus has 1000 units delivered. Lancair has 1870 units
delivered.

Tom: These numbers are certainly too low to conclude anything from
them.

Mike: I agree.

I used the Lancair 300 for comparison due to the similarity with the
Cirrus SR.

I am impressed with the Cirrus SR. It represents a major advance in
design and concept for GA. Use of composites and state-of-the-art
avionics, not to mention the speed and rate-of-climb performance is a
giant leap forward.

I am perplexed to the negative comments about this airplane. There are
no stats to support a negative image. NTSB reports 18 total
accident/incidents, with 8 being fatal. Of the fatal accidents, one was
during test, and all the others were pilot error. If you review each of
the 7 other accident reports, there is nothing to indicate that the
airplane contributed to the fatality, and that unfortunately the Cirrus
pilots made the same mistakes made by other pilots flying other
airplanes.

Mike $$$ (PA28)