Cirrus... is it time for certification review?

"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

Peter,

It does seem like the parachute, an occasional a celebrity, amd the
inconsistancy of small samples have simply increased the hype factor.


I'd say so. But mind you, saying so already made me an "apologist"
here. Which brings me to another reason for the increase, with regard
to the pilot community, not the media: the introduction of gasp
"something new" (tm).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"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

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.

It could be. But even if not, for every landing that is not "the end of
the flight" there is a takeoff that is not "the beginning of the
flight". They will still equal.

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.

It does seem like the parachute, an occasional a celebrity, amd the
inconsistancy of small samples have simply increased the hype factor.


I'd say so. But mind you, saying so already made me an "apologist"
here. Which brings me to another reason for the increase, with regard
to the pilot community, not the media: the introduction of gasp
"something new" (tm).


That's a really good point, and the specter of being thought of as an
apologist for an airplane that I really don't like does hang over me quite
heavily. ;-

I suppose that I should be grateful that the safety record is approximately
average instead of demonstrably above average, just to avoid the apologist
label, but I'm not. I'm just not sold on the lack of demonstrated spin
recovery (with the chute as a backup) and the controls felt awkward and
possibly tiring when I sat in one on static display.

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.


Matt

"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

Peter Duniho wrote:
"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.

I think this is just two different ways of saying the same thing! :-)

Matt

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