Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

ArtP ) wrote:

The question that will never be answered is why didn't they use the BRS?

Why do you assume they didn't. At the time of that crash Cirrus had a
history of parachute deployment failures. One under actual and 2
during a factory sponsored demonstration to prove the system worked..
After that the deployment mechanism in the entire fleet was replaced
with an AD. The last SB that I am aware of for the parachute was
issued less then 6 months ago.

Good point. The above questions should read: "Why did the BRS fail to
deploy during the spin?" Was it the PIC's decision or a failure of the
deployment system?

This very issue is going to be argued in court, as the wife of one of the
pilots is suing Cirrus on the grounds that a defect may have prevented the
deployment of the 'chute.


--
Peter

In article 1082997048.902464@sj-nntpcache-3, John Harper
wrote:

At this point in just about
any plane, Muller-Beggs will work fine (let go of everything and wait).

NOT TRUE!!!
Go back and re read Gene Beggs' SPORT AEROBATIC articles.

What do you mean, "go back"? I've never read them in the
first place...


"EDR" wrote in message
...
In article 1082997048.902464@sj-nntpcache-3, John Harper
wrote:

At this point in just about
any plane, Muller-Beggs will work fine (let go of everything and wait).

NOT TRUE!!!
Go back and re read Gene Beggs' SPORT AEROBATIC articles.

Edr,

The Cirrus cannot recover
from a spin without pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests


As I thought: nowhere does it say it "cannot recover from a spin without
pulling the parachute and did not do so in tests". It says "has not been
demonstrated". There's a subtle but important difference.

Oh, and a question: Using the common method of spin recovery from a one turn
spin on, say, a Bonanza, what's the altitude loss? Less than 920 feet? Much
less? I wouldn't think so. There goes the coffin corner...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:23:46 +0000, EDR wrote:
1. CAPS .................................................. Activate

To me, that seems to spell out, if you're in a spin at less than 900ft,
you better use CAPS or you're toast. Furthermore, it spells out, if
you're in that situation, don't bother trying to recover. Just use CAPS.

I'd have to give the point to EDR.

How much does it take to recover from a spin in a Mooney or in a C172?

And also who's going to recover in a low and slow, steep angle of bank when
turning bas or final?

FW
"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"C J Campbell" wrote
Therefore, the Cirrus cannot
recover from a spin when below 900' AGL. Many other aircraft can.

Name one aircraft that can cruise better than 170 kts, carry four
people, and can recover from a spin at 900 AGL.

Michael

"Dave Katz" wrote in message
...
"Dude" writes:

though there isn't much data on the crash in Spain) were CFIT. Hard
to blame these on the plane per se.


"per se"?

Trying to separate out the "plane is a death trap" argument from the
"plane
attracts idiots" argument.


Accusing those of us who think the statistics are relevant of hyperbole
will
not save any lives, nor win the argument. The fatalities per 100,000
flight
hours stat is a very valid and fair stat.

And like all statistics it says only what it says, and drawing
conclusions from a statistic (particularly a single one) is very
risky. You have to ask a series of questions: What does the statistic
actually measure?

Fatal accidents per 100,000 hours of flight.


Is the measurement statistically significant?

The standard appears to be that the measurement is not valid until 1,000,000
hours are reached.


Are
similar statistics comparable, and what do the comparisons mean?

This stat does paint with a broad brush, but if all you are looking for is a
measure of average safety in average usage by average pilots (that fly that
plane) then the measure is very accurate. Yes, if you compare two models
that are used by vastly different skill levels or in different types of
missions, then you may invalidate the data by means of asking the wrong
question. That is not being done here at all.


What
does the statistic have to say as a predictor for an individual (which
is really what people are concerned with)?


Unless you are one of those people who believes you are above average, then
it means a lot. What makes one person who buys and flies a Cirrus all that
different from another? What about comparing them to other brands of new
airplanes buyers? There is no obvious difference, you will have to propose
one. This is not a picky little nit type of stat. Saying that Cirrus just
attracts idiot pilots is not enough, you need say why. I haven't seen a
good reason yet.

For example, if there's never been a fatality in a DA40, does that
mean that a Cirrus is infinitely more dangerous?

No, too little data on the DA40, and no, infinite would be silly.

If it turns out that
lots of idiots by Cirrus aircraft, does that mean that if you decide
to buy one then you as an individual are more likely to become an
idiot?


NO! my point exactly. They are likely much the same as the Lancair, 182,
DA40, Piper 6, etc. (perhaps in the case of the 40 you get more beginners
as they can get insurance).

The statistics (assuming that they pass significance tests) really
tell you only that something is going on, but they can't tell you
what. This is a red flag to go and actually examine the accident
records and try to make an honest evaluation and decide for yourself
what they mean to you.


That would be true, except that examining the records tell us nothing. You
should rely on the BIG RED FLAG! Seriously. If they had a common thread
that was fixed, I would grant an exceptional case (aka V tail break ups).
Until then, no.

Once again, you can't take out the "stupidity factor" from one
manufacturer's stats, and not the others.

I fully agree, and herein lies the heart of the issue. Since there is
no independent "idiots per 100,000 pilots" statistic measured, it's
very difficult to quantitatively describe it. Furthermore, an
anecdotal analysis of GA accidents gives the impression that the
"stupidity factor" overwhelms all other contributors, which implies
that the planes, per se (there's that phrase again) are not a major
part of the problem. So unless the plane causes you to become an
idiot, as an individual thinking of purchasing one the statistics say
almost nothing about how much risk the plane itself poses to you in
particular.


My point is that the stat is such a large macro that the idiot factor gets
rounded out. As an average idiot, we are all more likely to die flying a
Cirrus, than we are flying a 182. We are all average idiots in this stat.
It is too big to slice apart that way.


I believe they are over a million fleet hours, and I am told that is
generally considered the time at which the numbers become valid.

This would imply an average of somewhere around 700 hours per
aircraft, which is way off the mark, considering that probably close
to half of the fleet was delivered in the last year. I suspect that
the fleet time is at most probably half of that, but of course we're just
making up numbers since this is never actually measured.

Another would be that everyone of us is likely to decide that we are not
one
of those idiots. In fact, the ones that are dead likely thought that.

"Aviation, where all of the children are above average." ;-)

Either the design is safe or it is not.

C'mon, this is patently and obviously not true, unless your measure of
"safe" is "nothing bad ever happens" in which case all designs are
unsafe. Short of pieces coming off, it's almost impossible to measure
safety, except in very specific ways (things like impact tests, though
those are not necessarily predictors of anything useful either) or very
general ways (statistics, which don't tell you much.)


No, all you have to do is set a standard. How much more risk are you
willing to take on your flight to enjoy the Cirrus over the Cessna? If its
double, go for it. In my standard, I find the high fatality rate
unacceptable when compared to the ancient Cessna. It should be better.

There is almost no practical
way to prove the cause without changing the results. Therefore, the
design
is bad until it is found to be performing more safely. If Cirrus
implements
a change, and then gets different results, then we can talk again. (the
parachute fix seems to have helped).

I think you're overreaching logically here. Perhaps I can restate it:
if there is a statistically significant difference in (accidents,
fatalities, choose your measure) then there is likely to be some
factor or factors that could be changed to reduce it. It's not just
"design" or training or even marketing; it's also things like low
time-in-type and mission profile (long XCs may be inherently more
risky due to unfamiliar terrain, multiple weather systems, etc.)

I don't see that a design change of the physical airplane will keep
people from doing stupid stuff (I suppose TAWS might reduce CFIT
accidents, but people would scream "crutch," which I agree with to a
point, though I suspect it will be standard in the avionics before
long.)

Cirrus has implemented changes to the training program, and COPA has
provided a number of resources, including recurrent training and
critical decisionmaking seminars, and a number of the insurance
underwriters are raising requirements for time and training. Whether
these changes will reduce the accident rate (or have already) will
take another chunk of time to determine. There are a few data points,
however; the rate of landing accidents (prop strikes, etc.) seem to
have dropped since they got rid of the original training organization
and started stressing speed and landing attitude control more. The
situation is not static by any means.


Those are all good, but how does that compare with the Cessna which requires
a very small time of dual instruction for familiarity? Diamond? Lancair?
Cirrus gets this level of scrutiny by running around BRAGGING about the safe
design of their plane with a chute. In his interview I recently read, Mr. K
was all about how great his airfoil is. Also, they get this scrutiny because
they have high fatalites.

If the problem is indeed personality, perhaps they are selling the
planes to
the wrong people. I would not necessarily disagree that this is the
case
except to point out that they are not changing their sales practices and
other than looking at experience levels what are you going to do anyway.

I don't think either of us have any facts as to whether or not Cirrus
is changing their sales practices. And as you note, it's also not
clear how a sales rep is supposed to determine whether a customer is a
"wrong person" or not; they're not psychologists or mind readers, so
short of someone's experience level (or at least how they represent
it, as they're not getting a background investigation) there's not
much to go on, and it's unclear that overall experience levels
correlate with the accidents in any case.

Cirrus could get some good PR by simply dropping the SRV idea, and
requiring
a high level of hours to buy their SR20 and SR22. I don't see this
happening, so I guess we will have a bunch more Thurman Munson Jr.'s.

It's unclear that this would actually help. One could make a case
that an SR20 or SRV would be an excellent aircraft in which to take
primary and instrument training, assuming that the pilot understands
that the process will take longer than it would in a 152. Typical
trainers are more forgiving, but after the first ten hours I'd argue
that this is a detriment, as it allows all kinds of bad habits (like
the 50' AGL roundout) to develop. Teaching speed discipline on
landing, and getting early and thorough exposure to the avionics,
could well make them better pilots. There are a fair number of pilots
who bought an SR20 to learn in, and so far as I know, none of them
have come to a tragic end. As such, their statistics look excellent,
for what that's worth.


Well, I think the SRV and SR 20 would be better placed in the hands of more
experienced folk. Since I don't see too many of those folk clamoring for a
VFR only, glass cockpit, nearly 200k plane, I say they are using it to
attract low time pilots. I think the days of students buying a Cirrus heve
been nixxed by the insurers.


The SR22 is arguably too much of a handful as a primary trainer,
though a few people have done it. The insurance people are the main
gatekeepers in this case. The number of low-total-time pilots flying
SR22s is probably quite small.

Arguably? Definitely. You may note the 22 is doing better than the 20 in
the stats. I think this is because, as I have heard from more than one low
time prospective Cirrus buyer, the plane scares them. The 22 must have
higher time pilots at the yoke.

"Dude" wrote in message
...
I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The combination
will
slow my plane

Reducing throttle in a Cirrus slows the plane down too.

without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an
argument about shock cooling.

Then stop making statements that rely on the assumption that shock cooling
exists.

Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not
change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it.

So what? First of all, your assumption that high RPM, low throttle power
settings avoid shock cooling is simply wrong. If there is such a thing as
shock cooling, then reducing power will cause shock cooling, regardless of
what mix of RPM and MP you use. Additionally, at low throttle, high RPM
settings, the engine is windmilling, being driven by the airflow through the
prop, and is considered by many to be at least as damaging to an engine as
shock cooling, if not more so.

Secondly, the fact that "many pilots" fly in a way to try to avoid something
that does not happen isn't relevant to any rational discussion. Why would
an aircraft designer install speed brakes just to address some psychological
need for a pilot to use them, even if there is no practical advantage to
doing so?

In other words, if you want to play the "avoid shock cooling card", you'd
better darn well be prepared to argue that "shock cooling" is real.

The Cirrus does
not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec)

It's not a FADEC. It's not advertised as a FADEC. It cannot possibly be a
"phony fadec [sic]", since no one's called it a FADEC in the first place.

Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot frigging
louder than the ones that think it works just fine.

I haven't seen any evidence to even buttress that statement. But even if
it's true, how's that anything other than basic human nature? Why would
someone for whom everything's going fine invest a huge effort complaining
about that? Who do you expect to hear from, if not from the few folks who
have had engine problems?

Pete

In article 1082997048.902464@sj-nntpcache-3, John Harper
wrote:
At this point in just about
any plane, Muller-Beggs will work fine (let go of everything and wait).

"EDR" wrote in message
...
NOT TRUE!!!
Go back and re read Gene Beggs' SPORT AEROBATIC articles.In article 1083006290.499387@sj-nntpcache-3, John Harper wrote:

What do you mean, "go back"? I've never read them in the
first place...

Then what did you base your comment on?
(I have the original three articles.)

What I read elsewhere. However I did have the technique
wrong, it seems (after a bit of surfing). I thought you took
your feet off the pedals, and that's not so, just your hands off the
stick. (Before everybody rushes in and says "you terrible
incompetent inept pilot, glad I'm not sharing the airspace
with you, etc etc etc" - I do practice spin recoveries quite
often, but using the "full" technique).

I guess I should try my "modified" M-B technique sometime
in the incipient phase. After all M-B are talking about a fully
developed spin, i.e. after 3 turns, and in the original context
of this thread, if you haven't spotted that something is wrong
after three turns of a spin (and tried to do something about it)
then your piloting skills are probably not your greatest concern.

Trouble is while my head finds spins fascinating, my stomach
feels otherwise, so I never do more than a couple in a single
flight - generally as I'm leaving the practice area, which in turn
is generally because my stomach is already suggesting it's
time to go home.

John


"EDR" wrote in message
...
In article 1082997048.902464@sj-nntpcache-3, John Harper
wrote:
At this point in just about
any plane, Muller-Beggs will work fine (let go of everything and
wait).

"EDR" wrote in message
...
NOT TRUE!!!
Go back and re read Gene Beggs' SPORT AEROBATIC articles.In article
1083006290.499387@sj-nntpcache-3, John Harper wrote:

What do you mean, "go back"? I've never read them in the
first place...

Then what did you base your comment on?
(I have the original three articles.)