Cirrus... is it time for certification review?

"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

"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

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