Cirrus... is it time for certification review?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
So, it seems to me that before we start throwing around statements like
"the
problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes", it ought to be
established
that there *is* a problem in the first place.

Pete, from the reports I have seen about Cirrus crashes it is clearly
pilot error. Of course the same probably applies to all aircraft
types.

Yes, it does. I guess I should clarify that I am interpreting the
statement
"the problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes" to mean that the
Cirrus
has an unusual problem with the pilots as compared to other airplanes. I
agree that the statement "the problem is with the pilots, not the
airplanes"
applies to pretty much any airplane. In that respect, the Cirrus is no
different from any other similar airplanes.

Pete

I guess that is why they have type ratings. Rather than a certification
review should there be a "type rating" required for a Cirrus. Wouldn't that
be a slippery slope.

Howard

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..

snip

So, it seems to me that before we start throwing around statements like
"the problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes", it ought to be
established that there *is* a problem in the first place.

Pete

Flying magazine (or AOPA?.. dunno) ran the numbers a year or so ago and
compared the accident rate between Cirrus and competitive models. I don't
have a copy at hand, but there was a significant difference in accidents
with Cirrus having a much higher rate than the other A/C.

KB

In article ,
"Kyle Boatright" wrote:

Flying magazine (or AOPA?.. dunno) ran the numbers a year or so ago and
compared the accident rate between Cirrus and competitive models. I don't
have a copy at hand, but there was a significant difference in accidents
with Cirrus having a much higher rate than the other A/C.

And in the past year, the numbers have gotten worse.
Accidents and incidents (from theFAA and NTSB databases)
1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
SR20 1 0 2 3 0 1 2 7
SR22 - - 2 2 3 8 12 15

And in the past year, the numbers have gotten worse.
Accidents and incidents (from theFAA and NTSB databases)
1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
SR20 1 0 2 3 0 1 2 7
SR22 - - 2 2 3 8 12 15

We don't know if these are "worse" without knowing fleet size and hours
flown for those years.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Kyle Boatright" wrote:

Flying magazine (or AOPA?.. dunno) ran the numbers a year or so ago and
compared the accident rate between Cirrus and competitive models. I
don't
have a copy at hand, but there was a significant difference in accidents
with Cirrus having a much higher rate than the other A/C.

And in the past year, the numbers have gotten worse.
Accidents and incidents (from theFAA and NTSB databases)
1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
SR20 1 0 2 3 0 1 2 7
SR22 - - 2 2 3 8 12 15

As someone else pointed out, you have to consider the number of aircraft in
service and, even better, estimate the fleet hours for the time period. The
article I mentioned attempted to do those things. A simple count of
accidents won't.

KB

Doing a little math:

And in the past year, the numbers have gotten worse.
Accidents and incidents (from theFAA and NTSB databases)
1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
SR20 1 0 2 3 0 1 2 7
SR22 - - 2 2 3 8 12 15
TOTAL 1 0 4 5 3 9 14 22
rate (%): 50 0 2 1 .3 .6 .7 1
fleet size: 2 7 206 514 902 1491 1949 2323
SR22 fleet 121 383 687 1180 1560 1848
SR20 fleet 2 7 85 131 215 311 389 475

So, each year a bit less than one percent of the fleet bites it. The
rate seems to be increasing slightly in the last few years, but the
sketchiness of this data precludes a conclusion based on that.

To compare with the Cessna fleet (bearing in mind the errors in the year
data due to registrations), I'll just add the last five years of fleet
size, getting something like 125,000. Five years of accidents at a 3/4%
rate (the last five years of the Cirrus rate, eyeballing it) would imply
something like a thousand C-172 crashes.

So, were there "something like a thousand" C-172 crashes in the last
five years?

Jose

Fleet info source from 's post Oct 28, 1:10 pm,
summed for SR20 and SR22. I added the total fleet size (by
airworthiness date), figuring it was unlikely that the Cirrus fleet
would have accumulated many date errors yet due to sales.
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..
Any aircraft has a baseline accident rate. I think the Cirrus has a
higher accident rate because a handful of pilots get themselves into a
mindset where they are willing to enter conditions they would have not
entered without the big round "insurance policy". Often they get away
with pushing things. Sometimes they don't, and those accidents are the
ones that are taking the Cirrus accident rate to higher than predicted
levels.

The problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes.

I've yet to see anyone document an accident rate that is actually higher
than might be expected (never mind "predicted"...who has predicted a
specific accident rate for the Cirrus, and why should we believe that
prediction?).

A quick NTSB database search shows in the last six months 4 accidents (2
fatal) involving a Cirrus SR20, and 52 (5 fatal) involving a Cessna 172.
The SR22 was involved in 7 accidents (2 fatal), while the Cessna 182 was
involved in 36 (6 fatal).

One might say that the fatal accident rate seems disproportionate (50% of
the SR20, 25% for the SR22 versus 10% for the 172 and 20% for the 182),
but at the sample sizes present, there's absolutely no reasonable way to
draw any valid statistical conclusion (and note that for the SR22 and the
182, the rates are actually similar).

Apples and oranges. The 182 fleet is many times larger than the SR22 fleet.
And the 172 fleet is near infinite compared to the Cirrus fleet. The
numbers look pretty bad for Cirrus.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..
Any aircraft has a baseline accident rate. I think the Cirrus has a
higher accident rate because a handful of pilots get themselves into a
mindset where they are willing to enter conditions they would have not
entered without the big round "insurance policy". Often they get away
with pushing things. Sometimes they don't, and those accidents are the
ones that are taking the Cirrus accident rate to higher than predicted
levels.

The problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes.

I've yet to see anyone document an accident rate that is actually higher
than might be expected (never mind "predicted"...who has predicted a
specific accident rate for the Cirrus, and why should we believe that
prediction?).

A quick NTSB database search shows in the last six months 4 accidents (2
fatal) involving a Cirrus SR20, and 52 (5 fatal) involving a Cessna 172.
The SR22 was involved in 7 accidents (2 fatal), while the Cessna 182 was
involved in 36 (6 fatal).

One might say that the fatal accident rate seems disproportionate (50% of
the SR20, 25% for the SR22 versus 10% for the 172 and 20% for the 182),
but at the sample sizes present, there's absolutely no reasonable way to
draw any valid statistical conclusion (and note that for the SR22 and the
182, the rates are actually similar).

Apples and oranges. The 182 fleet is many times larger than the SR22
fleet. And the 172 fleet is near infinite compared to the Cirrus fleet.
The numbers look pretty bad for Cirrus.

Did you adjust for the kind of flying done by each? No, you didn't.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
m...
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..
Any aircraft has a baseline accident rate. I think the Cirrus has a
higher accident rate because a handful of pilots get themselves into a
mindset where they are willing to enter conditions they would have not
entered without the big round "insurance policy". Often they get away
with pushing things. Sometimes they don't, and those accidents are the
ones that are taking the Cirrus accident rate to higher than predicted
levels.

The problem is with the pilots, not the airplanes.

I've yet to see anyone document an accident rate that is actually higher
than might be expected (never mind "predicted"...who has predicted a
specific accident rate for the Cirrus, and why should we believe that
prediction?).

A quick NTSB database search shows in the last six months 4 accidents (2
fatal) involving a Cirrus SR20, and 52 (5 fatal) involving a Cessna 172.
The SR22 was involved in 7 accidents (2 fatal), while the Cessna 182 was
involved in 36 (6 fatal).

One might say that the fatal accident rate seems disproportionate (50%
of the SR20, 25% for the SR22 versus 10% for the 172 and 20% for the
182), but at the sample sizes present, there's absolutely no reasonable
way to draw any valid statistical conclusion (and note that for the SR22
and the 182, the rates are actually similar).

Apples and oranges. The 182 fleet is many times larger than the SR22
fleet. And the 172 fleet is near infinite compared to the Cirrus fleet.
The numbers look pretty bad for Cirrus.

Did you adjust for the kind of flying done by each? No, you didn't.

moo

The flights all involve an equal number of takeoffs and landings only some
are more successfull in the landing department than others.

"Peter Duniho" wrote

A quick NTSB database search shows in the last six months 4 accidents (2
fatal) involving a Cirrus SR20, and 52 (5 fatal) involving a Cessna 172. The
SR22 was involved in 7 accidents (2 fatal), while the Cessna 182 was involved
in 36 (6 fatal).

Clue - Look at fleet size, then adjust for that, and come back with some more
meaningful statistics.

How many bazillion C172's are there out there, vs. Cirrus?
--
Jim in NC