Cirrus... is it time for certification review?

"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.

"Dave Stadt"
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.

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

Unless you wish to redefine "flight" , no, they don't. Are circuits
"flights"?

moo

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

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

Unless you wish to redefine "flight" , no, they don't. Are circuits
"flights"?

moo

I suspect so. Unless one just motors around on the ground in a big
rectangle.

"Dave Stadt" wrote
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.

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

Unless you wish to redefine "flight" , no, they don't. Are circuits
"flights"?

I suspect so. Unless one just motors around on the ground in a big
rectangle.

Which would be redefining "circuits". So the flights don't "all involve an
equal number of takeoffs and landings". Your desire to engage in semantics
aside, Cirruses are not training aircraft. So a direct comparison of
"numbers" is really telling us enough about the safety of each plane.
Either way.

moo

Which would be redefining "circuits". So the flights don't "all involve an
equal number of takeoffs and landings".

How so? Is there an accumulation of aircraft in the sky (or on the
ground) when one does circuits? When I do them, the number of takeoffs
does in fact equal the number of landings. I just do more of them.

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.

"Jose"
Which would be redefining "circuits". So the flights don't "all involve
an equal number of takeoffs and landings".

How so? Is there an accumulation of aircraft in the sky (or on the
ground) when one does circuits? When I do them, the number of takeoffs
does in fact equal the number of landings. I just do more of them.

But every takeoff and landing isn't a separate flight.

m

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

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

Unless you wish to redefine "flight" , no, they don't. Are circuits
"flights"?

I suspect so. Unless one just motors around on the ground in a big
rectangle.

Which would be redefining "circuits". So the flights don't "all involve
an equal number of takeoffs and landings".

They most certainly do. How can one make one takeoff and less than or more
than one associated landing, excluding the occasional bounce.

Your desire to engage in semantics
aside, Cirruses are not training aircraft.

Why not. I suspect with the insurance requirements involved they are used
quite frequently in a training environment.

So a direct comparison of
"numbers" is really telling us enough about the safety of each plane.
Either way.

moo

Although the SR-22 is fixed gear wouldn't it be more appropriate to
compare them to other planes of similar performance and wing loading?
Then remove the "gear up" incidents for the final comparison?

When it comes to performance and handeling the SR-22 is about as far
from a 172 as you can get. I don't know of any "every day" retracts
like the Bo, or Mooney with near the wing loading of the SR-22 and
the 172 can be over 26% less than those at a tad over 14# per sq ft.

Actually both the Mooney and Bo are far easier to slow down even with
the tendency to float by the Mooney and they have roughly 30% less
wing loading than the SR-22.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Actually both the Mooney and Bo are far easier to slow down even with
the tendency to float by the Mooney and they have roughly 30% less
wing loading than the SR-22.

Having owned both, I disagree. The Cirrus was easier to slow down than
my 'C' model Mooney. The only reason my 'M' model Mooney is easier to
slow down than the SR-22 is due to the speed brakes.
---
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

--
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X