Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

G.R.,

And they
really tried to make it do that.


Proof?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Greg,

Again: 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.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jd-10,

Ha! I take your Cessnas and add A TAILDRAGGER. Anything else is just
training wheels...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:24:57 +0200, Thomas Borchert wrote:

Greg,

Again: 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.

Ya, but I thought we were talking about a Cirrus and not a Bonanza. And,
I think the point remains. If you get into a spin in a Cirrus, the chute
seems to be clearly recommended. To me, that implies that Cirrus has
zero faith that someone in a fully developed spin is going to recover
unless they deploy their chute. Please, feel free to correct.

Another way of looking at this, if you enter a spin slightly higher than
1000 and you start trying a recovery, you may recover in another plane.
If a cirrus, unless you deploy your CAPS WITHOUT TRYING TO RECOVER from
your spin, they seem to imply you won't be around to talk about it. To
me, that's more important than some corner case. It also fails to mention
if "demonstrated...deployment" actually means it has slowed the craft to
safe landing velocities or if that's just the altitude required to get the
chute deployed and dragging air. If it's JUST starting to drag some air,
I think the whole 900ft corner case then becomes a strawman. After all, I
don't think a chute popping 10 feet from the ground is anything to talk
about, if you're wanting to live.

Also, it didn't mention what the minimum demonstrated altitude loss is for
a CAPS deployment from a full spin (3-turn, right??)? Anyone know? Is it
even possible?

Thanks.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
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.

Thomas,

IMHO you are right and wrong. I agree that the SR-[20,22] may be
recoverable from spin. The POH just says that it was not demonstrated
during the certification process ( my guess is they saved time and
money at that point ). In practice you do what the POH says in a
situation like that.

Greetings
Dieter

Dave,

We may have reached the point where we are going to have to disagree on what
we still disagree on.

I believe that picking apart the record is LESS informative than using the
statistic. Here are my reasons:

1. The records of many planes are simply too long to do this with.
2. For any individual accident, there is usually too much mystery to really
assign a cause.
3. The interpretation process is full of opportunities for prejudice.
4. We all think we are above average.

Saying that no one is an average pilot may be true, but I think that the big
stats like this one are useful for all of us. Nothing can predict the
future, but you have to use what data you have to make a decision. I think
that if you take apart the 182 record, you will find a lot of the same
nonsense behavior as in the Cirrus. The value is that less of them died for
it.

After all, we have limitations. Not being Superman, I still need a plane to
fly. Also, I can't spend my life figuring out why Cirrus pilots are fairing
poorly. If I did, I would not be able to have the money to buy one and the
answer would be moot. I am not going to assume that because I have better
judgement, that those things will not happen to me. I am going to exercise
good judgement by buying the plane with a safer record, and then practice
sound judgement again everytime I fly it.


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

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.

But this perverts the nature of statistics. Even very accurate and
valid statistics (with lots of data points, etc.) can never predict
the individual outcome; statistics can only predict the aggregate
outcome. The "average" usage by the "average" pilot does not exist,
and the characteristics of that average cannot even be described, nor
do the statistics predict anything about them. Matter of fact, it is
easy to make the case that the average pilot does *not* scud run in
freezing rain and crash into mountains; it only takes a very small
handful of "special" pilots to skew the statistics.

You cannot even make probabilistic predictions ("I am more likely to
die in a Cirrus than a 182") because the statistics only allow this if
the population is either uniform (like coin flips) or the statistics
can describe the differences between individuals in the population.
The fatalities per 100K statistic is completely worthless for a
quantitative assessment of individual risk. It is meaningful (to some
extent, anyhow) if you are an insurance underwriter, since they deal
in the aggregate, but it only tells them what has been, not what
will be.

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.

I don't actually think the Cirrus attracts idiot pilots, that was
someone else's statement. I was trying to use it to make a point.

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.

Um, the records tell us a lot; the statistic tells us close to nothing
(other than a number.) The records tell us that some of the dead
pilots were scud running in terrible conditions, and if you can
honestly say that you never scud run in terrible conditions, your
personal risk level is much lower than someone who does.

By only looking at the single number, you throw away all of the
information that might help you make an informed risk assessment.

If these planes were mysteriously "falling from the sky" I'd agree
with you, but the failure in most of the cases was squarely in the
left seat.

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.

See above. Statistically there is no "average idiot" and
mathematically you cannot make the statement that you as an individual
are more likely to die. If the fatality rates were constant, you
could make the statement that more people were going to die next year
per 100K hours in a Cirrus than in a 182, but you couldn't say
anything about your own risk. Furthermore, the fatality rate in the
Cirrus is plummeting as the fleet grows, so if you want to play the
extrapolation game you could predict that the Cirrus rate will be much
lower this year and thus will magically become more safe than the 182.

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.

That's not the same as saying it's either Safe or Unsafe. Life is unsafe,
and you make your risk assessment and live it. The problem is that we are
generally lousy at risk assessment, and ultimately it's somewhat arbitrary
and almost always rationalized (otherwise we'd never get in a car or take
a shower.) I'm probably less safe in an ancient Cessna than in a Cirrus
(this showed the last time I tried to land one!) Is my risk double in the
Cirrus? I doubt it.

I would like the Cirrus fatality rate to be better than it is (and all
other airplane makes, for that matter.) It's hard to judge whether it
"should" be or not. The trends are that it will be, as the number of
fleet hours is growing much faster than linearly (due to the rapid
rate of delivery) but the fatality rate is not keeping pace.

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.

A new glass panel 182 probably takes almost as much time to transition
into safely for serious use (IFR) as does a Cirrus, though the fact
that so many people learned to fly in them helps with the basic
airwork. The Lancair is in the same class as the Cirrus and I would
expect the transition to be at least as difficult (they're also a bit
faster than the comparable Cirri and the outside visibility isn't as
good.)

Cirrus bragging about safety is rather premature and unfortunate, I agree
with you.

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.

It's still happening with SR20s; SR22s are pretty much impossible to
insure as a zero-time student, unless you come with a lot of money and
don't expect to solo for a long time.

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.

Yep, and a lot of people trade up to the SR22 after building SR20 time.

Are you a COPA member Peter?

I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all the
bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and then
you let anyone buy a membership). The root of the problem is suspected to
be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend. They give the reason
for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power
sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them.

I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus prop
controls as FADEC or even FADEC like. However, they have commented on how
"simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot. The unintended
consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the engine
and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more
problematic.

Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If your
level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you
should not log on. Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest you
do the same.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"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

And it better have a radial engine, wood spar, fabric covering, and not a
single working instrument except the engine gages (real men take care of the
engine first, last, and always!).


"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Jd-10,

Ha! I take your Cessnas and add A TAILDRAGGER. Anything else is just
training wheels...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I tried flying other planes, but only the Cirrus had enough room for the
cooler full of quiche, and the Martha Stewart cookware I use to warm it up.
A thermos full of latte' and you're good to go, girlfriend.

-Mike

"jd-10" wrote in message
...
I don't know why you dorks won't face facts:

A Cirrus is for a pilot with a very small penis. No real man would be
caught dead in that Lexus-looking POS. "d00d, it's lie having a 'vette,
man."

PUSSIES!

In fact, men with large penises ONLY fly single-engine Cessnas. They are
the finest example of great airplane design in the world. They can take
you where a Cirrus would BREAK UP ON LANDING!

Real men don't need a ballistic parachute either. If you **** up, shut
up and die like an aviator.

I repeat, Cirri are for men with very small penises.

That is all.
--
JD-10

Greg,

Ya, but I thought we were talking about a Cirrus and not a Bonanza. And,
I think the point remains.


We were comparing the Cirrus to "conventional" aircraft, and some were
implying the older ones were no problem to recover at altitudes below 910
feet, while the Cirrus would be a problem. Turns out that the 910 feet are
needed to recover from a one-turn spin (as certification requires) for the
Cirrus. Well, I doubt you'd get away with much less in any comparable
aircraft, e.g. the Bonanza. And in that case, that point does NOT remain.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)