![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
Peter Dohm wrote: From this data, I don't think the Cirrus rate stands out excessively. Dick Collins did the same analysis for new 182s and Cirrus. Same result. It does seem like the parachute, an occasional a celebrity, amd the inconsistancy of small samples have simply increased the hype factor. I'm sure that is the case. Then again, if a chute equipped airplane has the same accident rate as a traditional design, I think one must question the value of having the chute and its associated cost and weight. It makes the pax happy. I have one in my ultralight and I've always thought that the odds of it being the right choice in an emergency are very slim. Of course, the people saved by them would probably install one again at twice the cost... moo |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
... It does seem like the parachute, an occasional a celebrity, amd the inconsistancy of small samples have simply increased the hype factor. I'm sure that is the case. Then again, if a chute equipped airplane has the same accident rate as a traditional design, I think one must question the value of having the chute and its associated cost and weight. Given that the types of accidents that the parachute is intended to address are exceedingly rare even in non-equipped airplanes, I would find it VERY surprising if the overall accident rate was noticeably affected by the presence of the parachute. In fact, it is the rarity of those accidents itself that in my opinion calls into question the value of having the parachute and its added cost and weight, rather than the lack of a change in accident rate. Pete |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jose wrote:
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. It is good to see some fairly complete data. I agree that the statistics are such that you can't draw a lot of conclusions as yet, and when the fleet size was less than 500 it is especially troublesome as a couple of crashes has a large affect on the percentages. However, as the fleet has grown beyond 1000 and the rate is increasing nearly linearly, that is something to be concerned about, in my opinion. Matt |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Trip report: Cirrus SR-22 demo flight | Jose | Piloting | 13 | September 22nd 06 11:08 PM |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed. | C J Campbell | Piloting | 122 | May 10th 04 11:30 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |