Cirrus Death Trap?

The long knives are coming out now... This excerpted from an AP
article this evening:

"Hersman said that as of September, there were 545 SR20s registered in
the United States. Since 2001, the NTSB has investigated 18 accidents
involving the plane; those crashes resulted in 14 deaths."

They sure make that sound terrible, don't they? Why, in just five
years, 3.3% of the SR-20 fleet has been lost to accidents, resulting in
14 deaths!

Heck, that means that in, um, er, something like 151.5 years there will
be NO Cirrus SR-20s left flying at all! See the whole article he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061013/...an_plane_crash

:-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
The long knives are coming out now... This excerpted from an AP
article this evening:

"Hersman said that as of September, there were 545 SR20s registered in
the United States. Since 2001, the NTSB has investigated 18 accidents
involving the plane; those crashes resulted in 14 deaths."

They sure make that sound terrible, don't they? Why, in just five
years, 3.3% of the SR-20 fleet has been lost to accidents, resulting in
14 deaths!

Heck, that means that in, um, er, something like 151.5 years there will
be NO Cirrus SR-20s left flying at all! See the whole article he

Yeah, but the bright side is that in only 100 years, the Cirrus SR-20
fatality rate will be nil! Did you know that the Sopwith Camel was one
of the SAFEST aircraft last year? ZERO fatalities! Wow!

Statistics have sharp edges on both sides.

Marco

Jay Honeck writes:

Heck, that means that in, um, er, something like 151.5 years there will
be NO Cirrus SR-20s left flying at all!

The aircraft seem like the type that might appeal to low-time pilots
who think that special gadgets will keep them safe and/or free of
accidents (or surviving accidents). Naturally this would result in
higher accident numbers, even if the aircraft is not fundamentally
unsafe.

Also, it seems like the aircraft is actively marketed to precisely
this type of buyer, which makes things even worse. It looks like Carl
Lidle fell for it (in more ways than one).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Everyone who ate tomatoes before the year 1880 is dead!
Therefore tomatoes must be poisonous.



"Marco Leon" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Jay Honeck wrote:
| The long knives are coming out now... This excerpted
from an AP
| article this evening:
|
| "Hersman said that as of September, there were 545 SR20s
registered in
| the United States. Since 2001, the NTSB has investigated
18 accidents
| involving the plane; those crashes resulted in 14
deaths."
|
| They sure make that sound terrible, don't they? Why, in
just five
| years, 3.3% of the SR-20 fleet has been lost to
accidents, resulting in
| 14 deaths!
|
| Heck, that means that in, um, er, something like 151.5
years there will
| be NO Cirrus SR-20s left flying at all! See the whole
article he
|
| Yeah, but the bright side is that in only 100 years, the
Cirrus SR-20
| fatality rate will be nil! Did you know that the Sopwith
Camel was one
| of the SAFEST aircraft last year? ZERO fatalities! Wow!
|
| Statistics have sharp edges on both sides.
|
| Marco
|

Mxsmanic wrote on 10/12/06 21:27:

Jay Honeck writes:

Heck, that means that in, um, er, something like 151.5 years there will
be NO Cirrus SR-20s left flying at all!

The aircraft seem like the type that might appeal to low-time pilots
who think that special gadgets will keep them safe and/or free of
accidents (or surviving accidents). Naturally this would result in
higher accident numbers, even if the aircraft is not fundamentally
unsafe.

Also, it seems like the aircraft is actively marketed to precisely
this type of buyer, which makes things even worse. It looks like Carl
Lidle fell for it (in more ways than one).



Bull. He did the right thing, realizing that he was a low-time pilot, and had a
flight instructor with him.

Thurman Munson also had a CFI with him too. A CFI who is
not experienced in the airspace, or airplane is a broken
crutch. A PIC accompanied by a CFI is not doing his command
job. Rules by the Yankee's organization to require a CFI
should require active crew resource management, planning and
dispatch by the CFI. Two pilots waiting for the other to
make a decision will have an accident sooner or later.
IMHO
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/n...SB-AAR-80-2%22
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Joe Feise" wrote in message
...
| Mxsmanic wrote on 10/12/06 21:27:
|
| Jay Honeck writes:
|
| Heck, that means that in, um, er, something like 151.5
years there will
| be NO Cirrus SR-20s left flying at all!
|
| The aircraft seem like the type that might appeal to
low-time pilots
| who think that special gadgets will keep them safe
and/or free of
| accidents (or surviving accidents). Naturally this
would result in
| higher accident numbers, even if the aircraft is not
fundamentally
| unsafe.
|
| Also, it seems like the aircraft is actively marketed to
precisely
| this type of buyer, which makes things even worse. It
looks like Carl
| Lidle fell for it (in more ways than one).
|
|
|
| Bull. He did the right thing, realizing that he was a
low-time pilot, and had a
| flight instructor with him.
|

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck writes:

Heck, that means that in, um, er, something like 151.5 years there will
be NO Cirrus SR-20s left flying at all!

The aircraft seem like the type that might appeal to low-time pilots
who think that special gadgets will keep them safe and/or free of
accidents (or surviving accidents). Naturally this would result in
higher accident numbers, even if the aircraft is not fundamentally
unsafe.

The aircraft appeals to just about everyone. Note the sales figures.

Also, it seems like the aircraft is actively marketed to precisely
this type of buyer, which makes things even worse. It looks like Carl
Lidle fell for it (in more ways than one).

Here's a guaranteed laugh:

What kind of plane do you suggest he should have been flying that would have
made this accident less likely? Your statement above begs this question.
And you don't even know what happened.

If there's any increased overall risk in flying a Cirrus, it's the false
sense of security it may give some pilots flying IFR. Now tell us how that
differs from other glass cockpit rides. And, pretty soon, they almost all
will be.

moo

On 2006-10-13, Mxsmanic wrote:
Also, it seems like the aircraft is actively marketed to precisely
this type of buyer, which makes things even worse. It looks like Carl
Lidle fell for it (in more ways than one).

The type of aircraft he was in was utterly irrelevant. Smashing into a
building in a Cessna 150 is just as fatal as hitting a building in a
Cirrus, or a Learjet, or an ultralight.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-10-13, Jay Honeck wrote:
They sure make that sound terrible, don't they? Why, in just five
years, 3.3% of the SR-20 fleet has been lost to accidents, resulting in
14 deaths!

Compared to other aircraft types, the SR-20 seems to be having a rather
high fatal accident rate. But, at least anecdotally - it seems to be a
re-run of the 'forked tailed doctor killer' [0] reputation that the Bonanza
got - pilots who are not experienced enough/not current enough being so
far behind the aircraft that they'll never crash - because they will be
five nautical miles behind the grid location of where their plane goes
in!

The insurance companies will be the ones who correct this (presumably,
they are already setting some fairly high minimum time requirements to
get insurance on an SR20 these days). Just like you will have a hard
time finding anyone insuring a so-green-he-needs-mowing pilot in a Beech
Bonanza.

[0] When our club had an S-35 Bonanza, I used to fly it on trips quite a
lot - I really enjoyed that aircraft. I jokingly told people I was safe
in it because I wasn't a doctor :-)
--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
The type of aircraft he was in was utterly irrelevant. Smashing into a
building in a Cessna 150 is just as fatal as hitting a building in a
Cirrus, or a Learjet, or an ultralight.

But a slower plane is much less likely to make the turn too wide (which
seems to be what happened). The turning radius increases with the square of
airspeed.

--Gary